SC: Husband’s father and cousin serving as witnesses in a Petition for Annulment of Marriage filed by the Wife – not an evidence of collusion.

The Supreme Court, in Republic vs. Ramoran-Wong, et al. (G.R. No. 276986, February 3, 2026), has clarified that the mere fact that both spouses want to terminate their marriage does not, by itself, establish collusion in petitions for the declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage. Collusion requires proof that the parties deliberately conspired to deceive the court by fabricating or concealing material facts to obtain a favorable judgment.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Third Division declared a marriage void on the ground of the husband’s psychological incapacity, while rejecting the allegation that the parties had colluded.

The petition was initiated by the wife, who alleged that her husband had consistently failed to perform the essential obligations of marriage because of persistent physical, emotional, and financial abuse. According to her, these behaviors were already evident even before they were married.

Since the husband failed to file an answer, the Regional Trial Court directed the Provincial Prosecutor to determine whether the parties had colluded. Following the required investigation, the Associate Provincial Prosecutor concluded that no evidence of collusion existed.

During trial, the wife presented testimonial and expert evidence, including the testimony of a clinical psychologist as well as the husband’s father and cousin, who described his abusive conduct and personal vices. The husband neither presented evidence nor opposed the petition.

Despite the evidence presented, the trial court dismissed the petition, holding that psychological incapacity had not been sufficiently established. It also questioned the credibility of the husband’s relatives, observing that their testimonies appeared favorable to the wife. The RTC further noted that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son and considered the husband’s willingness to have the marriage dissolved as a suspicious circumstance.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ruled that the evidence adequately established the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, insisting that the parties had colluded to secure a declaration of nullity.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

The Court explained that collusion involves a deliberate and secret agreement between spouses to deceive the court or obtain relief through fraudulent means. Citing De Ocampo v. Florenciano, it reiterated that collusion exists when spouses cooperate to manufacture, conceal, or falsely attribute a marital offense in order to obtain a legal dissolution of their marriage. Thus:

“While the RTC declared that Vincent consented to his father and cousin serving as witnesses to Theresa’s Petition, it did not categorically state that Vincent and Theresa colluded to have their marriage declared void ab initio. The Court emphasizes that the parties’ mutual desire to void their marriage does not necessarily equate to collusion. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion. In the absence of any evidence that the parties conspired to fabricate a matrimonial offense or colluded to obtain a declaration of nullity without valid grounds, a finding of collusion is unwarranted. It should never be discounted that the severity of the spouses’ marital conflicts is reason enough to encourage relatives from both sides to come forward and testify.”

To guard against such schemes, both the Family Code and the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages require the participation of the State in nullity and annulment proceedings. Whenever a respondent fails to answer or fails to contest the petition, the court must direct the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists. If collusion is established, dismissal of the petition becomes mandatory.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the circumstances relied upon by the RTC did not sufficiently demonstrate a conspiracy between the spouses to fabricate grounds for nullity. Although certain facts may have appeared unusual, they did not amount to proof of fraudulent cooperation.

The Court emphasized that spouses may both desire the end of their marriage without necessarily engaging in collusion. A respondent’s failure to oppose the petition, or even an express willingness to have the marriage declared void, does not by itself establish a scheme to mislead the court. Absent evidence that the parties falsified testimony, suppressed valid defenses, or otherwise manipulated the judicial process, collusion cannot be inferred. The Court likewise observed that it is not uncommon for relatives from either side to testify in cases involving serious marital conflict.

The Supreme Court further ruled that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence did not automatically indicate collusion. A petition for declaration of nullity remains subject to the court’s independent evaluation of the evidence presented by the petitioner.

Ultimately, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding that the husband was psychologically incapacitated. It relied on the totality of the evidence, including witness testimonies and the clinical psychologist’s assessment of both spouses.

In closing, the Supreme Court underscored that although marriage is accorded constitutional protection as a social institution, the law must also acknowledge circumstances where the marital relationship has become destructive and beyond repair. Courts should not compel parties to remain in marriages that have ceased to fulfill their essential purpose and have instead become a source of harm.