Short answer. Yes. Article 48 requires the court to order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal to appear on behalf of the State in every annulment or nullity case, to prevent collusion between the spouses and guard against fabricated or suppressed evidence. This appearance is mandatory, not optional or case-by-case.
What the law says
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
Family Code, Article 48 — State Participation; No Default Judgment. Read the full provision →
What the law says
no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment
Family Code, Article 48 — State Participation; No Default Judgment. Read the full provision →
The State's lawyer appears in every case, without exception
Article 48 does not leave the government's participation to the court's discretion or to whether either spouse requests it. 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. Whether the petition is contested or both spouses actually want the marriage ended, this representative's appearance is a mandatory feature of the proceeding, not something either spouse can waive.
Why the State has a stake in a private marital dispute
Marriage is not treated as purely a private contract that two people can simply agree to unwind. The State's representative exists specifically to watch for two risks: spouses secretly agreeing between themselves to manufacture grounds for nullity or annulment, and evidence being invented or hidden to make a weak case look strong. This protects the institution of marriage from being dissolved on a basis that was never real, even where both spouses would personally prefer that outcome.
No judgment on agreement alone
The article backs this up with a hard rule on how the case can be decided: no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. Even if both spouses agree on every fact and neither contests the case, the court cannot simply grant the petition based on that agreement. Actual evidence still has to be presented and evaluated, precisely because an uncontested case is the situation most vulnerable to collusion.
What this means if you are filing
If you are considering annulment or a nullity petition, expect the State's representative to be an active participant in the proceeding, not a formality that rubber-stamps whatever the parties present. Your evidence needs to genuinely hold up on its own, independent of whether your spouse agrees with your position, because the court is barred from resolving the case on agreement alone. This is a built-in safeguard in every case of this kind, and it applies regardless of how amicable the separation otherwise is.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Republic v. Wong, G.R. No. 276986, February 3, 2026 — a spouse’s failure to oppose a nullity petition, and relatives testifying against that spouse, do not by themselves prove collusion under this article. Read our commentary →