MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife's mutual desire to end their marriage did not, by itself, constitute collusion in petitions for declaration of nullity or annulment.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the Third Division said collusion required proof that spouses secretly conspired to fabricate or misrepresent facts to secure a declaration that their marriage is void.
The ruling stemmed from a petition filed by a wife seeking to have her marriage declared void on the ground of her husband's psychological incapacity. She alleged that her husband had subjected her to continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse that began even before they married.
When the husband failed to file an answer, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate whether the spouses had colluded. The prosecutor found no evidence of collusion.
During the trial, the wife presented several witnesses, including a clinical psychologist as well as the husband's father and cousin, who testified about his abusive behavior and vices. The husband neither opposed the petition nor presented witnesses.
Despite the prosecutor's findings, the RTC dismissed the petition, saying the evidence failed to establish psychological incapacity. The court also questioned the credibility of the husband's relatives, noting that their testimonies appeared favorable to the wife and that the husband himself was willing to have the marriage annulled.
The Court of Appeals later reversed the RTC's ruling, finding sufficient evidence to declare the marriage void because of the husband's psychological incapacity.
The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the spouses had colluded to obtain the declaration of nullity.
The High Court rejected the argument, explaining that collusion refers to a secret agreement to deceive the court by fabricating or concealing facts to obtain an unlawful judgment.
Citing De Ocampo v. Florenciano, the Court said collusion exists only when spouses cooperate to create, simulate, or conceal a marital offense to secure the dissolution of their marriage.
The Court noted that while the RTC observed circumstances it considered suspicious, these did not establish that the spouses had conspired to invent grounds for nullifying their marriage.
"The mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion," the Court said, adding that a spouse's agreement with or failure to oppose a petition is not equivalent to a scheme to mislead the court. Without proof that the parties fabricated evidence or deliberately suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be presumed.
The Court also said the husband's failure to answer the petition or present evidence did not, by itself, prove collusion, stressing that petitions for nullity may still be resolved based on the evidence presented by the petitioner.
Upholding the Court of Appeals' ruling, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to establish the husband's psychological incapacity, citing witness testimonies and the psychologist's evaluation of both spouses.
The Court concluded by emphasizing that while marriage remains a protected social institution, the law must also recognize situations where a marital union has become irreparably broken and harmful.
"Marriage, in its truest form, must be a sanctuary: a space of mutual respect, care, and emotional safety. It must never become a chain that binds a person to a relationship that is not only fundamentally flawed, but damaging," the Court said, adding that courts should not stand in the way when a marriage has become beyond repair.