Manuel Almelor v.

Leonida Almelor
G.R. No. 179620 August 26, 2008

FACTS:
Manuel Alemelor (Manuel) was married to Leonida Almelor (Leonida) on 1989 to which they bore 3 children.
After 11 years of marriage, Leonida filed a petition to annul their marriage on the ground that Manuel was
psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations.

Leonida testified that when they met while working as medical clerks. After marriage, she described Manuel as
harsh, disciplinarian, unreasonably meticulous, and easily angered. He would impose discipline on their children in an
unreasonable way causing their frequent fights as a couple.

Leonida added that he had a lavish affection for his mother, and was dependent of his mother when it came to
decision-making. And that Manuel concealed to her his homosexuality. Manuel was very close with his male
companions, wherein she caught him talking over the telephone manifesting his affection for a male caller. She also
found several pornographic homosexual materials in his possession.

Manuel denied the allegations, but Leonida took their children and left their conjugal abode to which Manuel
stopped giving support to their children. A clinical psychiatrist was presented to prove Leonida’s claim that testified that
Manuel was psychologically incapacitated after a conduction of a one-time interview. Such incapacity is marked by
antecedence which existed even before the marriage, and appeared to be incurable.

Manuel argued that the true cause of Leonida’s hostility was their professional rivalry. And that the tales about
the pornographic materials were fabricated. He presented his brother, Jesus Almelor, who witnessed the harmonious
relationship between Manuel and Leonida.

The RTC nullified the marriage based not on Art. 36, but Art. 45 of the Family Code which talks about the
homosexuality.

ISSUE:
Is the nullification of marriage correct in ruling that there was a concealment of homosexuality on the part of
Manuel?

RULING:
No, because Manuel tried to salvage what remains of his marriage. There was no basis for the trial court to
declare Leonida’s petition for nullity because the supporting grounds relied upon cannot legally make a case under Art.
36 of the Family Code.

In the Molina doctrine “indeed, mere allegations of conflicting personalities, irreconcilable differences, incessant
quarrels and/or beatings, unpredictable mood swings, infidelities, vices, abandonment, and difficulty, neglect, or failure
in the performance of some marital obligations do not suffice to establish psychological incapacity.

Thus, the lower court should have dismissed the petition for not meeting the guidelines set in Molina. Leonida
only attempted to demonstrate Manuel’s homosexual tendencies by citing overt acts generally predominant among
homosexual individuals in an attempt to prove that Manuel is incapable of fulfilling his essential marital obligations.
Orlando Villanueva v. Lilia Canalita-Villanueva
G.R. No. 132955 October 27, 2006

FACTS:
Orlando Villanueva (Orlando) and Lilia Canalita-Villanueva (Lilia) were married on 1988. On 1992, Orlando filed a
petition for annulment of his marriage alleging that threats of violence and duress forced him into marrying Lilia who
was already pregnant, that he did not get her pregnant prior to the marriage; he never cohabited with her after
marriage; and that he later learned that Lilia’s child died during delivery.

Lilia answered with compulsory counterclaim praying for the dismissal of the petition, arguing that Orlando
freely and voluntarily married her; that they cohabited in Palawan for almost a month after their marriage; that when
Orlando left for Manila, she visited him personally; and that Orlando knew about her pregnancy which ended in their
son being born prematurely.

The trial court denied Orlando’s petition, and the CA affirmed the court’s decision.

ISSUE:
Was Orlando forced into the marriage, hence, making the marriage voidable?

RULING:
No, because Orlando freely and voluntarily married Lilia without threats or intimidation, duress or violence
compelled him to do so.

It took Orlando in a span of not less than 4 years and 8 months when he took serious step to have the marriage
annulled. The prolonged inaction evidently finds basis in Lilia’s allegation that this annulment suit was filed by Orlando
solely in the hope that a favorable judgment thereon would bolster his defense, if not altogether bring about his
acquittal in the criminal case for bigamy which was then already pending against him.

Despite Orlando’s claim that there was imminent and grave danger to his life and safety, the Court is not
convinced that it deprived him of the will to enter voluntarily to a contract of marriage. At the time he was allegedly
being harassed, Orlando worked as a security guard in a bank. Given his employment at that time, it is reasonable to
assume that he knew how to defend himself or proper way to keep himself out of harm’s way. Orlando failed to prove
that he was tricked into marrying Lilia.

Furthermore, he cannot invoke the claim that his marriage should be annulled because of absence of
cohabitation between him and Lilia because it is, per se, not a ground to annul a marriage. Otherwise, the validity of a
marriage will depend upon the will of the spouses who can terminate the marital union by refusing to cohabitate. The
failure to cohabit becomes relevant only if it arises as a result of the perpetration of any of the grounds for annulling the
marriage, such as lack of parental consent, insanity, fraud, intimidation, or undue influence.

Hence, since Orlando failed to justify his failure to cohabit with Lilia on any of those grounds, his marriage
remains valid.