Short answer. Yes. Article 55 of the Family Code lists sexual infidelity or perversion as one of the ten enumerated grounds for legal separation. A petition for legal separation may be filed on this ground alone, without requiring the spouse to have committed any other act.
What the law says
A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: (1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner; (2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation; (3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement; (4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned; (5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent; (6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent; (7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad; (8) Sexual infidelity or perversion; (9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or (10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.
Family Code, Article 55 — Grounds for Legal Separation. Read the full provision →
Sexual infidelity or perversion as a ground
Article 55 of the Family Code enumerates ten specific grounds for legal separation, and ground number 8 is: Sexual infidelity or perversion. These are listed as alternatives — either sexual infidelity or sexual perversion qualifies. A petitioner does not need to show physical violence, drug addiction, or any of the other grounds in order to file. The existence of sexual perversion by the respondent spouse, standing alone, is sufficient basis for the petition. The article provides that a petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds, confirming that a single ground is enough.
The ten grounds in full
Article 55 lists the complete set of grounds: repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct toward the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner; physical violence or moral pressure to compel a change of religious or political affiliation; inducing or attempting to induce the petitioner or a child to engage in prostitution; a final judgment of imprisonment for more than six years, even if pardoned; drug addiction or habitual alcoholism; lesbianism or homosexuality; bigamous marriage contracted by the respondent; sexual infidelity or perversion; an attempt against the petitioner's life; and abandonment for more than one year without justifiable cause. The definition of child includes both natural and adopted children.
Legal separation in the Philippines: what it does and does not do
A decree of legal separation does not dissolve the marriage. The spouses remain legally married and cannot remarry. What changes is the legal relationship between them: they are entitled to live separately, the property relationship between them is terminated, and the guilty spouse may face forfeiture of their share in the community or conjugal property in favor of the common children or the innocent spouse. The decree also allows the innocent spouse to revoke donations made to the guilty spouse and to remove the guilty spouse as an insurance beneficiary. These are significant legal consequences, but the marriage bond itself continues to exist.
Bars to the legal separation action
Even when a ground exists, Article 55's grounds cannot be pursued in all circumstances. There are bars to the action — condonation by the innocent spouse, consent to the act complained of, connivance, mutual guilt, collusion, and prescription. For prescription, a petition must be filed within five years from the time the ground occurred. A petitioner who waits too long after discovering the sexual perversion may lose the right to file even though the act itself constitutes a valid ground. Acting while the ground is still within the prescriptive period is an essential practical consideration.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Aiko Yokogawa-Tan vs. Jonnell Tan and the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 254646, October 23, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Maria Vicia Carullo-Padua vs. Joselito Padua, G.R. No. 208258, April 27, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Arabelle J. Mendoza vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 157649, November 12, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lucita Estrella Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 126010, December 8,1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →