A husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for annulment, the Supreme Court said in a recent ruling.

The high court said collusion means that spouses secretly agree to fabricate or misrepresent facts to nullify their marriage.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and dated 3 February 2026, the Supreme Court’s Third Division found no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. The Court ultimately voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

Records showed that the wife filed the petition, alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband failed to file an answer to the petition, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses.

After the investigation, the Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During the trial, the wife presented several witnesses, including a clinical psychologist and the husband’s father and cousin, who testified about his vices and abusive behavior.

The husband presented no witnesses and did not oppose the petition.

The RTC, however, dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

It also questioned the testimony of the husband’s relatives, noting that their statements appeared to favor the wife.

The lower court pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son and that the husband was willing to have the marriage annulled.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that there was sufficient evidence to establish psychological incapacity.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the spouses had colluded to have their marriage declared void.

The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something unlawful.

It cited the case of De Ocampo v. Florenciano, which held that collusion exists when spouses cooperate to make it appear that one will commit, fabricate, or conceal 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 the State to participate in annulment and nullity proceedings.

Courts must order a public prosecutor to determine whether collusion exists, especially when the respondent fails to file an answer or raise any defenses. If collusion is proven, the court must dismiss the petition.

The Supreme Court noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fabricate grounds for nullifying their marriage.

It emphasized that a mutual desire to end a marriage does not automatically constitute collusion.

A spouse’s agreement with, or lack of objection to, an annulment petition is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses fabricated evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

The Supreme Court also noted that serious marital conflict can naturally lead relatives from both sides to testify.