The Supreme Court has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage is not enough to prove collusion in annulment or nullity cases.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC Third Division said wanting a marriage dissolved does not automatically mean that spouses are working together to defraud the court or manipulate the legal process.
The ruling stemmed from a petition filed by a wife seeking to declare her marriage null and void due to her husband’s alleged psychological incapacity.
The wife claimed that her husband failed to perform his marital duties and subjected her to physical, mental, and financial abuse. She also alleged that his behavior had already manifested even before they were married.
After the husband failed to respond, the Regional Trial Court directed the local Provincial Prosecutor to investigate whether there was collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor later found that no collusion existed.
During the trial, the wife presented several witnesses, including a clinical psychologist, as well as the husband’s father and cousin, who testified on his alleged bad habits and abusive behavior.
The husband did not present any witnesses and did not oppose the relief sought by his wife.
The RTC, however, dismissed the petition after finding that the evidence failed to establish the husband’s psychological incapacity. It also doubted the testimony of the husband’s relatives, saying their statements favored the wife, and noted that the husband’s father had spoken to him about the case and that the husband was willing to have the marriage annulled.
The Court of Appeals later reversed the RTC ruling, finding sufficient evidence to prove the husband’s psychological incapacity.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court and argued that the spouses had colluded to secure the nullity of their marriage.
The SC disagreed.
The High Court explained that collusion refers to a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal. It cited the case of De Ocampo v. Florenciano, which held that collusion exists when spouses cooperate to make it appear that one of them committed, fabricated, or concealed a marital offense to secure a divorce.
The SC said the Family Code and the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages require State participation in nullity and annulment cases precisely to prevent collusion.
If collusion is proven by the public prosecutor, the petition must be dismissed by the court.
However, the SC stressed that a spouse’s failure to contest a case does not by itself prove collusion. It said a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity may still be resolved based on the evidence presented.
The Court ultimately upheld the CA’s finding that the husband was psychologically incapacitated, citing the evidence on record, witness testimonies, and the psychological evaluation conducted by the doctor on both spouses.