A husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage is not sufficient evidence to prove collusion in an annulment petition, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled.

The high court clarified that legal collusion requires proof that spouses secretly conspired to fabricate or misrepresent facts to mislead a court into nullifying their marriage.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the court’s Third Division found no collusion in a petition to declare a marriage void, ultimately nullifying the union based on the husband’s psychological incapacity.

Case records show the wife filed the initial petition, alleging her husband was unable to fulfill his marital obligations due to a pattern of physical, psychological and economic abuse that began prior to their wedding.

When the husband failed to file a formal response to the lawsuit, the Regional Trial Court directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate whether the couple was working together to orchestrate the case.

An assistant provincial prosecutor subsequently reported that no collusion existed.

During the trial, the wife presented testimonies from a clinical psychologist, as well as the husband’s father and cousin, who both testified to the husband’s history of vices and abusive behavior. The husband presented no witnesses and did not contest the petition.

Despite the unchallenged testimony, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling the evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity.

The trial court expressed skepticism over the testimony of the husband’s relatives, noting that the father admitted discussing his appearance in court with his son and that the husband was open to the annulment.