Collusion in Annulment and Declaration of Nullity of Marriage Cases

In the Philippines, where absolute divorce remains unavailable to the non-Muslim majority, the 1987 Constitution and the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209) safeguard marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family. 

While the state holds a vital interest in preserving marital unions, annulment and declaration of absolute nullity proceedings are strictly governed by law, requiring clear and convincing evidentiary proof to establish valid, statutorily defined grounds rather than the simple preference of the spouses.

Consequently, Philippine law strictly prohibits couples from mutually agreeing to dissolve their marital bond through simulated proceedings, or collusion. To enforce this protection, the law mandates the active intervention of public prosecutors to investigate for collusion and participate in trial, ensuring that evidence is neither fabricated nor suppressed. 

What is Collusion?

In Republic v. Ramoran-Wong, G.R. No. 276986 (February 03, 2026), the Supreme Court (SC) 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.” 

In the same ruling, the Court also cited an earlier definition in De Ocampo v. Florenciano, G.R. No. L-13553 (February 23, 1960) as applied in the context of divorce or legal separation. Accordingly,   

“Collusion is the agreement between husband and wife for one of them to commit, or to appear to commit, or to be represented in court as having committed, a matrimonial offense, or to suppress evidence of a valid defense, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. This agreement, if not express, may be implied from the acts of the parties. It is a ground for denying the divorce. (Griffiths vs. Griffiths, 69 N. J. Eq. 689 60 Atl. 1099; Sandoz vs. Sandoz, 107 Ore. 282, 214 Pas. 590.).”

In cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, Article 48 of the Family Code mandates the state through the prosecuting attorney or fiscal to participate in the legal process and prevent collusion. To wit:

“Article 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.”  

Supreme Court Rules on Collusion in Annulment and Nullity Cases

The aforementioned provision is further reinforced by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Under Section 8(3) of the Rule: 

“(3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the court shall order the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties.”  

Additionally, Section 9 provides for the investigation report of the prosecutor as far as collusion investigation is concerned. Accordingly, 

“Section 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor.— 

(1) Within one month after receipt of the court order mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor shall submit a report to the court stating whether the parties are in collusion and serve copies thereof on the parties and their respective counsels, if any.

(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall state the basis thereof in his report. The parties shall file their respective comments on the finding of collusion within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of the report. The court shall set the report for hearing and if convinced that the parties are in collusion, it shall dismiss the petition.

(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the court shall set the case for pre-trial. It shall be the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial.”

Furthermore, Section 13 of the Rule specifies the consequences of the petitioner’s or respondent’s failure to appear at the pre-trial, while Section 15(c) provides for collusion investigation during any stage of the proceedings:  

“Section 13. Effect of failure to appear at the pre-trial.— 

(a) If the petitioner fails to appear personally, the case shall be dismissed unless his counsel or a duly authorized representative appears in court and proves a valid excuse for the non-appearance of the petitioner.

(b) If the respondent has filed his answer but fails to appear, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial and require the public prosecutor to investigate the non-appearance of the respondent and submit within fifteen (15) days thereafter a report to the court stating whether his non-appearance is due to any collusion between the parties. If there is no collusion, the court shall require the public prosecutor to intervene for the State during the trial on the merits to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence.”

“Section 15. Pre-trial order.— 

(c) The pre-trial order shall also contain a directive to the public prosecutor to appear for the State and take steps to prevent collusion between the parties at any stage of the proceedings and fabrication or suppression of evidence during the trial on the merits.”

The mandatory involvement of public prosecutors under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC underscores the state’s vital interest in safeguarding marriage as an inviolable social institution. By actively investigating potential collusion and preventing fabrication or suppression of evidence, the state ensures that marital bonds are only dissolved through genuine, lawful processes rather than fraudulent convenience. 

How Collusion Investigations Take Place

Upon court order, the public prosecutor (fiscal) conducts a mandatory collusion investigation to ensure the legal action is genuinely adversarial rather than a joint arrangement between spouses to deceive the court.

The fiscal schedules a preliminary interview where the petitioner must personally appear. Though this session is often brief—sometimes lasting five minutes or less—the questioning is direct, specifically probing whether any prior agreements, monetary arrangements, or pacts exist between the spouses regarding the filing.

Maintaining that the proceedings are strictly non-collusive is critical for the petition to survive. The petitioner must establish that the other party did not conspire or secretly agree to the legal action. If the fiscal uncovers evidence of collusion and submits an adverse report, the court will set it for hearing and dismiss the case.

Mutual Desire to End Marriage

In a recent jurisprudence in Republic v. Ramoran-Wong, G.R. No. 276986 (February 03, 2026), the Supreme Court ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage does not, by itself, prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity. Likewise, a spouse’s failure to oppose the petition does not automatically establish collusion.

In this case, although the husband did not contest the petition and expressed willingness to have the marriage declared void, the Court found no evidence that the spouses conspired to fabricate grounds for nullity. It therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) decision declaring the marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Respondent’s Failure to Appear

In Puyat v. Puyat, G.R. No. 181614 (June 30, 2021), the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the respondent’s alleged failure to testify and non-appearance during the scheduled presentation of evidence should not be automatically equated to the presumption of collusion between the parties. 

Equally, the Court emphasized that the respondent’s failure to testify should not be held against the petitioner, who had no role in the other party’s absence. It further held that the testimony was not indispensable because the case could be resolved based on the other evidence presented. After all, the respondent’s counsel had the opportunity to challenge through cross-examination. 

Failure to File and Answer

Although the facts in Juliano-Llave v. Republic, G.R. No. 169766 (March 30, 2011) did not merit collusion as an issue, it underscored that a Court can declare a marriage void ab initio despite the failure of the respondent to file an answer and present evidence. 

In the case, the Court held that the respondent spouse was not deprived of the right to due process when judgment was issued without the spouse’s answer and without having presented evidence.  

Under Philippine procedural rules, a respondent in a nullity or annulment case cannot be declared in default; instead, the court mandates a collusion investigation by the public prosecutor to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings. 

Final Thoughts

For petitioners seeking an annulment or declaration of nullity in the Philippines, maintaining a strictly independent case is essential to avoid allegations of collusion. While parties are legally permitted to resolve ancillary issues like child custody and property division through court-approved stipulations, any agreement that makes the dissolution of the marriage dependent on simulated facts or suppressed evidence constitutes illegal collusion.

The public prosecutor’s collusion investigation must be treated as a serious legal proceeding where the petitioner must clearly show that the case is brought without mutual consent. Demonstrating that the petition relies entirely on statutorily defined grounds rather than a private arrangement protects the case from dismissal and ensures that the final court ruling is legally valid.

Duran & Duran-Schulze Law (“DDS Law”) is a prominent family law firm in the Philippines. For legal consultations and inquiries regarding annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage, call us at (02) 8928 9535 (landline) or +639171940482 (mobile), or email info@duranschulze.com.