SC: Counterclaim Survives Dismissal in Nullity of Marriage Case

The dismissal of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for the petitioner’s failure to prosecute does not bar the respondent-spouse from pursuing his own counterclaim for nullity in the same action, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.

In a decision promulgated on November 4, 2026 and penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC First Division also held that an archived case is not a dismissed case. It must first be revived, upon the court’s own initiative or “upon motion of any party,” before the trial court can act on it further.

The Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Juanito P. Maraya. It reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) decision dated February 25, 2025 and resolution dated October 7, 2025 in CA-G.R. CV No. 121859, and remanded the case to the trial court for its revival and the reception of Juanito’s evidence on his counterclaim.

The case

On February 24, 2005, Juanito’s wife, Florenda C. Madriaga, filed a petition to declare their marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code. She alleged that Juanito was psychologically incapacitated. Juanito personally received the summons on March 10, 2005.

The case was dismissed in 2006 for Florenda’s failure to prosecute, then reinstated on her motion. The provincial prosecutor of Batangas, as deputy of the Office of the Solicitor General, reported in 2007 that there was no collusion between the spouses. After repeated postponements due to the absence of Florenda, her witnesses or her counsel, and her counsel’s manifestation that she was abroad and not communicating, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nasugbu, Batangas, Branch 14, archived the case on September 15, 2009.

On March 24, 2022, Juanito moved to revive the case and attached his Answer. In it, he also prayed for the nullity of the marriage, but alleged that it was Florenda who was psychologically incapacitated.

The RTC denied the motion, ruling that only Florenda as plaintiff could move for revival and that Juanito’s motion was “tantamount to collusion.” It later dismissed the petition outright for failure to prosecute, reasoning that revival would be futile since the burden of proof rested on Florenda. The CA affirmed, holding that any revival at Juanito’s instance was “ineffectual and therefore futile.”

Archiving is time-bound, limited to specific grounds

The SC said the trial court erred when it archived the case in the first place.

Under SC Administrative Circular No. 07-A-1992, as reiterated in OCA Circular No. 89-2004, a civil case may be archived only:

when the parties are in the process of settlement;
when an interlocutory order or incident is pending before a higher court that has issued a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction; or
when the defendant, without fault or neglect of the plaintiff, cannot be served with summons within six months from issuance of the original summons.

“[T]he archiving of cases is time-bound and limited to specific grounds,” the Court said.

None of the grounds applied. Summons had been duly served, no incident was pending before a higher court, and a nullity case could not have been the subject of settlement since “the validity of a marriage can never be compromised.”

The Court explained that archiving is meant only to temporarily defer cases where no grounds exist for outright dismissal. Here, a ground to dismiss under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court was already available when Florenda repeatedly failed to appear. Instead of dismissing the case, the RTC archived it, left it idle for 13 years, and then used that same inaction to deny Juanito relief.

Any party may move to revive

Paragraph (d) of the General Provisions of OCA Circular No. 89-2004 provides that the presiding judge shall, “motu proprio or upon motion of any party,” order the revival of an archived case whenever it is ready for trial or further proceedings.

The SC therefore ruled that the RTC erred in holding that the right to move for revival belonged exclusively to Florenda as plaintiff.

Archival is not dismissal

The Court further held that an archived case must first be revived before further action may be taken on it, because “archival is not tantamount to a dismissal.”

“The trial court must probe and determine the interest of the parties to pursue the case. It is in the absence of showing of such interest that the case will then be dismissed with prejudice,” the Court said.

Juanito’s entry of appearance and records request in 2020, and his motion to revive with an answer in 2022, showed his interest to pursue the case. The RTC “should not have precipitously dismissed the archived case before it has been revived,” the SC said.

Counterclaim survives dismissal under Rule 17, Sec. 3

The central holding rests on the text of Rule 17, Section 3. The provision allows the dismissal of a complaint due to the plaintiff’s fault, but expressly “without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.”

The provision also states that such a dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits, unless the court declares otherwise. Juanito argued that this effect would bar him from challenging the marriage. The SC disagreed, ruling that the adjudication-on-the-merits clause cannot be read to defeat the defendant’s right preserved in the same provision.

To hold otherwise “is to let the last line of Rule 17, Section 3 render nugatory the preceding line of the same provision,” the Court said, invoking the rule that a provision must be construed to harmonize and give effect to all its parts.

“The dismissal of respondent’s petition does not operate to deprive him of his right to pursue his counterclaim either in the same or in a separate action,” the Court ruled.

Citing Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, the SC reiterated that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a counterclaim survives the dismissal of the complaint under Rule 17, Section 3, whether it is permissive or compulsory. This rule endures under the 2019 Rules of Court, since the provision was left unamended.

Answer as counterclaim

The Court characterized Juanito’s Answer as a counterclaim, not a mere affirmative defense. He did not simply seek to defeat Florenda’s claim; he asserted a new and independent claim for relief, namely that the marriage was void because of her own psychological incapacity.

The SC noted that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the procedural rule governing nullity cases, makes no express mention of counterclaims. It does, however, allow the respondent-spouse to file an answer, and the Rules of Court apply suppletorily.

Late answer excused

The Court acknowledged that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC requires the respondent to answer within 15 days from service of summons, which Juanito did not do.

It distinguished Juliano-Llave v. Republic, where a wife lost her right to answer because she obstinately refused to file one and resorted to dilatory tactics while the case proceeded normally. In Juanito’s case, the lower courts made findings only on Florenda’s neglect, none on his. The case had also been irregularly archived, and the trial court shared the duty to periodically review its docket.

The Court also stressed that “an action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage is imprescriptible.” Since Juanito could file a separate action anyway, requiring him to refile before another Family Court “would not serve any compelling purpose, is impractical, and counterproductive to the cause of justice.”

Mutual desire to end marriage is not collusion

The SC rejected the RTC’s finding of collusion.

“The mere fact that both spouses believe that a marriage should end is not tantamount to collusion,” the Court said. It noted that the spouses “fundamentally disagree on the root cause” of the marriage’s invalidity, with each blaming the other’s psychological incapacity.

Citing Puyat v. Puyat and Republic v. Ramoran-Wong, the Court said a lack of objection is not collusion. Without evidence that the parties conspired to fabricate grounds or obtain a nullity declaration without valid grounds, a finding of collusion is unwarranted. The prosecutor’s 2007 finding of no collusion is also entitled to the presumption of regularity.

Separate and distinct burdens of proof

Finally, the SC rejected the CA’s “futility” reasoning.

The plaintiff-spouse bears the burden of proving psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence, including its gravity, incurability and juridical antecedence. But Florenda’s failure to discharge that burden “does not affect—nor as the CA would put it, render ineffectual—the separate and distinct onus of petitioner to prove the allegations of his counterclaim,” the Court said.

As plaintiff in his own counterclaim, Juanito bears the burden of proving Florenda’s psychological incapacity through the jurisprudential requisites and by the established quantum of evidence. The ruling does not declare the marriage void.

Since the SC is not a trier of facts, it remanded the case to the RTC for reception of evidence and resolution on the merits.