The Supreme Court has granted a Petition for Review on Certiorari, reversing and setting aside the rulings of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the case remanded to the trial court for revival and reception of the husband's evidence on his counterclaim in a long-pending marriage nullity case.
The Case
On February 24, 2005, respondent Florenda C. Madriaga (Florenda) filed a Petition to nullify her marriage with Juanito on the ground that the latter was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. Summons was personally served and received by Juanito on March 10, 2005.
The case went through repeated dismissals, revivals, and postponements. On January 23, 2006, it was dismissed for failure to prosecute, then revived on February 10, 2006. Florenda was subjected to oral deposition on April 19, 2007, before leaving for Hong Kong where she was employed as an Overseas Contract Worker. On May 25, 2007, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the provincial prosecutor of Batangas to investigate whether collusion existed; per its Compliance dated August 22, 2007, the prosecutor confirmed no such collusion existed.
After several postponements due to the absence of Florenda, her witnesses, or her counsel, and in view of her counsel's manifestation that she was abroad and not communicating, the RTC archived the case on September 15, 2009.
On March 24, 2022, Juanito filed a Motion to Revive the archived case, attaching his Answer dated November 26, 2021, where he prayed for the nullity of his marriage to Florenda, alleging that it was she who was suffering from psychological incapacity. The RTC denied the motion and later dismissed the petition on the ground of failure to prosecute. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied Juanito's appeal and affirmed the RTC Orders.
The Issue
The question before the Court was whether the archived nullity case should be revived to allow the husband to present evidence on his counterclaim, and whether his Motion to Revive amounted to collusion between the parties.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition. Its dispositive portion reads:
"FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 25, 2025 and the Resolution dated October 7, 2025 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 121859 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court a quo for the revival of the case and the reception of respondent Juanito Maraya's evidence on his counterclaim."
By the Numbers
- February 24, 2005 – Florenda filed the Petition to nullify the marriage
- March 10, 2005 – summons personally served on Juanito
- April 19, 2007 – Florenda subjected to oral deposition before leaving for Hong Kong
- August 22, 2007 – prosecutor's Compliance confirming no collusion
- September 15, 2009 – case archived
- March 24, 2022 – Juanito filed the Motion to Revive
- February 25, 2025 – CA Decision denying the appeal
- October 7, 2025 – CA Resolution
- CA-G.R. CV No. 121859 – docket number of the CA case
The Court's Reasoning
The Court dispelled the RTC's insinuation that the case must be dismissed because the petitioner's motion was tantamount to collusion. It held that the mere fact that both spouses believe that a marriage should end is not tantamount to collusion, especially where the spouses fundamentally disagree on the root cause of the invalidity of the marriage. Both spouses did not admit incapacity on their part; rather, each contended that it was the other spouse who possessed such psychological incapacity.
Citing Puyat v. Puyat and Republic v. Ramoran-Wong, the Court emphasized that the parties' mutual desire to void their marriage does not necessarily equate to collusion, and that a lack of objection is not the same as collusion. The provincial prosecutor had reported at the outset that there was no finding of collusion, an official finding entitled to the presumption of regularity.
The Court explained that while it is the plaintiff-spouse who has the burden to prove the existence of psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence, Florenda's failure to do so due to her unresponsiveness or lack of interest does not affect the separate and distinct burden of the petitioner to prove the allegations of his counterclaim. As the plaintiff in his own counterclaim, the petitioner is equally entitled to the opportunity granted to the respondent in the original petition, to establish his cause of action and prove the right he asserts.
The Court reiterated that technicality and procedural imperfection should, as a rule, not serve as the bases of decisions. Since it is not a trier of facts, the Court resolved that a remand to the RTC for reception of evidence and proper resolution on the merits was most appropriate.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. E-03300, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.