Short answer. Yes. The Family Code lists lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent as the sixth ground for legal separation. In practice the ground is hard to prove and what it obtains is a decree of separation only — the marriage remains, and neither spouse becomes free to marry again. Concealment before the wedding is a separate provision.
What the law says
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
Family Code, Article 55 — Grounds for Legal Separation. Read the full provision →
What the clause says, and what it is
The provision is a single line: Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent. It was written in 1987 and reflects the thinking of that time, which is worth saying plainly because readers arrive at it from very different positions — some looking for a way out of a marriage that was never what it seemed, some worried about a spouse they still love. The clause is on the statute book and courts apply it, but what it opens is legal separation, not a route to remarriage.
Suspicion is not proof
In practice this ground is difficult, and for reasons the reader may find reassuring rather than otherwise. Courts have to be shown something, and a petition built on rumour, on a spouse's manner, on gossip from relatives or on what somebody assumes will not carry. Where these petitions succeed it is usually on admissions or on conduct that is documented, not on inference. Anyone thinking of filing on this basis should be honest with themselves about which of the two they actually have.
Concealment before the marriage is a different provision
If the complaint is not the fact itself but that it was hidden from you when you married, that belongs elsewhere. Concealment of homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage is one of the circumstances the Family Code treats as fraud, and fraud is a ground for annulment rather than legal separation. The two differ in what has to be proved and in what the case can achieve, and an action for annulment on the ground of fraud runs from the discovery of it, so the timing is different too.
Be clear about what you want the case to do
That choice is the real decision here, and it is worth taking before anything is filed. Legal separation ends the obligation to live together and dissolves the property regime, and that may be all that is needed where the practical problem is money and living arrangements. It does not dissolve the marriage. Where children are involved, their arrangements are decided on their own footing, and this ground gives no automatic answer to who they live with.
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 →