"There is no sufficient evidence to conclude that collusion existed between Theresa and Vincent
Collusion refers to a secret agreement or cooperation, typically for illegal or deceitful purposes, including schemes to defraud or to obtain something prohibited by law.70
In De Ocampo v. Florenciano,71 the Court defined collusion, in the context of divorce or legal separation:
Collusion...means 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.72 (Citations omitted)
To guard against the possibility of collusion between parties, the Family Code mandates the participation of the State in cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage.73 Article 48 of the Family Code states:
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.74
State participation in annulment and nullity cases is further reinforced by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,75 or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. The relevant portions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC provide:
Section 8. Answer. –
. . . .
(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.
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 on the finding of collusion within 10 days from receipt of a copy of a report[.] The court shall set the report for hearing and[,] [i]f 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.
. . . .
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 15 days thereafter a report to the court stating whether his non-appearance is due to any collusion between the parties. If there [i]s 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.
Here, the Republic, through the OSG, posits that collusion existed between the parties due to Vincent's knowledge that his father had served as a witness to Theresa's Petition.76 The Republic quoted the Decision of the RTC in supporting its argument:
[Vincent's] father and first cousin, Vicente Wong and Shella Wong Albano, respectively, also testified and similarly made a conclusion that [Vincent] is the one at fault with what happened to his marriage with [Theresa], attributing the same to his behavior and vices. Such a conclusion from the close relatives of [Vincent], who are expected to defend him, is unusual and calls for a strict scrutiny in order to dispel the possibility that it is done just to help the couple nullify their marriage. And this intention has been exposed by Vicente Wong's admission during cross-examination that he and his son talked together that he would testify in court regarding his marriage in order for his problem to be solved. This now clearly explains Vicente Wong and Shella Wong Albano's testimony putting the blame on respondent just so their marriage may be annulled. And this appears to be with the consent of [Vincent] himself in view of the admission that he is very much willing to have his marriage annulled and in fact, he is not opposing the petition filed by his wife for the annulment of their marriage. In view thereof, the court likewise finds their testimonies unworthy of full faith and credit.77
The Republic's argument is specious.
While the RTC declared that Vincent consented to his father and cousin serving as witnesses to Theresa's Petition, it did not categorically state that Vincent and Theresa colluded to have their marriage declared void ab initio. The Court emphasizes that the parties' mutual desire to void their marriage does not necessarily equate to collusion. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion. In the absence of any evidence that the parties conspired to fabricate a matrimonial offense or colluded to obtain a declaration of nullity without valid grounds, a finding of collusion is unwarranted. It should never be discounted that the severity of the spouses' marital conflicts is reason enough to encourage relatives from both sides to come forward and testify.
Further, Vincent's failure to file his answer and present his evidence does not automatically prove the existence of collusion.
In Puyat v. Puyat,78 the Court declared the marriage between the parties void ab initio, despite the respondent's failure to appear at her scheduled presentation of evidence. The Court held:
Ma. Teresa's alleged failure to testify when she did not appear during her scheduled presentation of evidence should not be automatically equated to the presumption of collusion between the parties[.]
[M]a. Tereresa's failure to testify is not fatal nor does it undermine the entire proceedings as the petition may be validly resolved even without her testimony. It must be noted that in arriving at its decision, the RTC relied on other pieces of evidence that were presented. Ma. Teresa's counsel was also given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses Gil Miguel produced in court.79
In the same case, citing Juliano-Llave v. Republic of the Philippines,80 the Court stated:
In Juliano-Llave v. Rep. of the Phils., the Court held that the respondent spouse was not deprived of her right to due process when judgment was issued without her answer and without having presented her evidence. The Court reasoned that "[h]er failure to file and answer and her refusal to present her evidence were attributable only to herself and she should not be allowed to benefit from her own dilatory tactics to the prejudice of the other party."
Although the case of Juliano-Llave is not in all fours as the circumstances surrounding the present case, the Court finds it relevant to the present case. While collusion was not an issue in Juliano-Llave, it is significant to underscore that the Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court declaring the marriage of the parties void ab initio despite the failure of the respondent spouse to file her answer and present her evidence. These factors should not be automatically equated to collusion.81 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
Here, not only is there lack of sufficient evidence proving that Theresa and Vincent conspired to have their marriage voided, but APP Domingo also issued an Investigation Report affirming the absence of collusion.82 This official finding is entitled to the presumption of regularity."
G.R. No. 276986, February 03, 2026
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
vs.
MA. THERESA RAMORAN-WONG AND VINCENT L. WONG,
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2026/feb2026/gr_276986_2026.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
