Dear PAO,
My husband filed a case for declaration of nullity of marriage. I am totally fine with it, and so I did not bother attending my court hearing to oppose it. However, a lawyer advised me that I should’ve gone and went to the hearing because my nonattendance may lead to the dismissal of the petition due to “collusion.” Is this correct?
Tsitsip
Dear Tsitsip,
No, the lawyer is not absolutely correct.
In the case of Puyat vs. Puyat, GR 181614, June 30, 2021, penned by Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang, the Supreme Court ruled that a party’s nonattendance at a scheduled hearing does not automatically merit a denial of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, saying:
“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. xxx
“Moreover, Ma. Teresa’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 (Regional Trial Court) 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.”
Additionally, in the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Wong, et al., GR 276986, Feb. 3, 2026, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the Supreme Court explained that the parties’ mutual desire to void their marriage does not necessarily equate to collusion, saying:
“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.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, your nonappearance cannot be automatically equated with collusion between you and your husband, especially if your presence is not necessary to validly resolve the petition. However, as a matter of practical advice, you are reminded that it is better to attend your scheduled court hearings to facilitate the disposition of the case and to ensure that your interests are adequately represented.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
