MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage does not, by itself, constitute collusion in a petition to declare a marriage void.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division found no collusion between the spouses and declared their marriage void on the ground of the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition, alleging that her husband was unable to perform his marital obligations due to continued physical, psychological and economic abuse that began even before they were married.

After the husband failed to file an answer, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate whether the spouses had colluded. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor later reported 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 about his abusive behavior and vices. The husband did not present any witnesses or oppose the petition.

Despite the prosecutor’s findings, the RTC dismissed the petition, ruling that the evidence failed to establish psychological incapacity. It also questioned the credibility of the husband’s relatives, noting that their testimonies appeared favorable to the wife and that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son. The trial court also cited the husband’s willingness to have the marriage annulled.

The Court of Appeals later reversed the RTC’s ruling, finding sufficient evidence to establish the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the spouses had colluded to secure a declaration that their marriage was void.

The SC rejected the argument, explaining that collusion refers to a secret agreement between spouses to deceive the court or obtain an unlawful result.

Citing De Ocampo v. Florenciano, the Court said collusion exists when spouses cooperate to fabricate, conceal or misrepresent facts to secure the dissolution of their marriage.

The Court also noted that the Family Code and the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages require the State to participate in such proceedings by directing a public prosecutor to determine whether collusion exists, particularly when the respondent fails to file an answer.

In this case, the SC ruled that the circumstances cited by the RTC did not establish that the spouses conspired to fabricate grounds for nullifying their marriage.

The Court stressed that a shared desire to end a marriage or a spouse’s failure to oppose a petition does not automatically amount to collusion, absent proof that the parties falsified evidence or deliberately suppressed valid defenses.

It also said the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence, standing alone, does not prove collusion, as courts may decide annulment petitions based on the evidence presented.

The SC ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding that the husband was psychologically incapacitated based on witness testimonies and the clinical psychologist’s evaluation of both spouses.

The Court underscored that while marriage is a protected social institution, the law must also recognize situations where a marital relationship has become irreparably broken.

“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.”