The Supreme Court has clarified that a mutual desire by both spouses to dissolve their marriage does not, by itself, constitute collusion in annulment or nullity of marriage cases. The ruling was issued in the case Republic vs. Ramoran-Wong and Wong (G.R. No. 276986, Feb. 3, 2026), with the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh.
Definition of collusion
The Court defined collusion as “a secret agreement or cooperation, typically for illegal or deceitful purposes, including schemes to defraud or to obtain something prohibited by law.” It emphasized that mere mutual desire to end the marriage is insufficient proof of collusion.
In the case, the Supreme Court’s Third Division found no collusion between the spouses in the petition to declare their marriage void. The Court declared the marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.
Facts of the case
The wife filed the petition alleging that her husband failed to fulfill his marital duties and obligations due to ongoing physical, psychological, and economic abuse that began before their marriage. When the husband did not respond to the petition, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate whether collusion existed between the couple. After investigation, the Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.
During trial, the wife presented several witnesses, including a clinical psychologist, the husband’s father, and a cousin, who testified about the husband’s vices and abusive behavior. The husband presented no witnesses to counter their testimonies.
Lower courts’ decisions
Despite the evidence, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence was insufficient to prove the husband’s psychological incapacity. The RTC also doubted the testimonies of the husband’s relatives, which favored the wife. The husband’s father testified that his son was willing to have the marriage annulled.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, finding sufficient evidence of the husband’s psychological incapacity. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the CA ruling and appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was collusion between the spouses to secure the annulment.
Supreme Court’s ruling
The Supreme Court rejected the OSG’s argument. Citing the case De Ocampo v. Florenciano, the Court stated that “collusion exists when spouses cooperate to make it appear that one will commit, fake, or hide a marital offense to secure a divorce.” To prevent collusion, the Family Code and the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages require state participation in annulment cases. Courts must order the public prosecutor to investigate possible collusion, especially when the respondent fails to file an answer. If collusion is proven, the court must dismiss the petition.
In this case, the Supreme Court noted that while the RTC suspected certain circumstances, these did not prove that the spouses fabricated or conspired to secure the annulment. The Court also found that the husband’s psychological incapacity was sufficiently established by the evidence.
Court’s message on broken marriages
The Supreme Court also offered a message about marriages that are beyond repair. It stated: “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. While the ideal remains that individuals choose wisely in love and commitment, the reality is that human beings make mistakes. When a marriage has become irreparably broken, the spouses so deeply incompatible as to render its continued existence unjust, the Court should not stand in the way.”
