One question occasionally arises in petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage: If both spouses want the marriage declared void, does that automatically mean they have colluded?
Marriage occupies a unique place in Philippine law. It is not merely a private contract between two individuals but an institution protected by the Constitution and the State. Because of this, petitions seeking to declare a marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code continue to face exacting judicial scrutiny.
Yet as jurisprudence evolves, so too does the understanding of what constitutes psychological incapacity and how courts should evaluate evidence presented in nullity proceedings. In the Supreme Court’s recent Decision in Republic of the Philippines v. Ramoran-Wong and Wong (G.R. No. 276986, February 3, 2026), penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the more nuanced approach introduced in Tan-Andal v. Andal, while clarifying an equally significant procedural issue: a respondent spouse’s willingness to have the marriage declared void does not, by itself, amount to collusion.
When Does Cooperation Become Collusion?
In the case, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the parties had colluded because the respondent husband did not oppose the petition, openly expressed his willingness to have the marriage declared void, and even allowed members of his family to testify in support of the petition. The Supreme Court was not persuaded.
According to the Court, these circumstances, standing alone, do not establish collusion. A spouse’s decision not to contest a petition—or even to agree that the marriage should be declared void—does not automatically mean the parties are trying to circumvent the law.
Instead, collusion involves something more deliberate: a secret agreement to deceive the court. This may take the form of fabricating evidence, suppressing valid defenses, or presenting false testimony simply to obtain a declaration of nullity. Without proof of such conduct, cooperation between the parties is not enough to invalidate the proceedings.
Why the Prosecutor’s Investigation Matters
The Decision also highlights the important role of the public prosecutor in nullity cases.
Before a court may proceed, the prosecutor is required to investigate whether the parties have colluded. In this case, the prosecutor concluded that no collusion existed after conducting the required investigation.
The Supreme Court gave considerable weight to that finding. It ruled that allegations of collusion cannot rest on speculation or assumptions simply because both spouses appear to be in agreement. There must be evidence showing that they acted together to mislead the court.
This reinforces the purpose of the prosecutor’s investigation: to protect the integrity of nullity proceedings while ensuring that legitimate petitions are not dismissed based on unfounded suspicions.
What does the law prohibit?
The ruling offers practical guidance for parties and practitioners alike.
It is not uncommon for spouses to reach the same conclusion that their marriage has irretrievably broken down. One spouse may choose not to oppose the petition, or may even cooperate by providing truthful testimony or relevant evidence. The Supreme Court made clear that this kind of cooperation is not, by itself, prohibited.
What the law seeks to prevent is not agreement between spouses, but dishonesty. The prohibition against collusion exists to stop parties from manufacturing grounds for nullity—not to penalize them for participating honestly in the judicial process.
Looking Ahead
The Decision provides welcome clarity on an issue that frequently arises in marriage nullity cases. By distinguishing genuine cooperation from fraudulent collusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts must look beyond appearances and focus on whether the parties have actually attempted to deceive the judicial process.
For litigants and practitioners, the ruling serves as a timely reminder that the integrity of nullity proceedings depends not on whether spouses agree, but on whether they deal honestly with the courts. After all, the law does not punish parties for telling the same truth—it guards against those who conspire to tell the same lie.