Short answer. Yes. Where a spouse abandons the other without just cause, or fails in his obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be sole administrator of the absolute community.
What the law says
the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property or for authority to be the sole administrator of the absolute community, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose
Family Code, Article 101 — Abandonment: Remedies of the Aggrieved Spouse. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling.
Family Code, Article 101 — Abandonment: Remedies of the Aggrieved Spouse. Read the full provision →
Three remedies, and receivership is the heaviest
Article 101 gives the aggrieved spouse a choice of three: receivership, judicial separation of property, or authority to be sole administrator, each subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose. They are not interchangeable. Receivership puts the property in the hands of a court-appointed third party and is aimed at preserving assets that are being dissipated or are at risk. Sole administration leaves you managing the property yourself, which is what most abandoned spouses actually want. Judicial separation of property ends the shared regime altogether, so that what you earn afterwards is yours. Which one fits depends less on how angry you are than on what the property needs.
What counts as abandonment
The article defines it rather than leaving it to argument: a spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other on having left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. Intention is the element, and it is what makes a work posting abroad or a long stay with relatives different from abandonment. The provision then supplies a presumption — a spouse gone three months, or silent about his whereabouts for the same period, is prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning. It is rebuttable, so the absent spouse can come to court and explain.
Abandonment is not the only trigger
The remedy is also open where a spouse fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, and the article says those obligations are marital, parental or property relations. That matters, because the spouse who is still physically at home but has stopped supporting the household, is running the community property into the ground, or is selling assets without accounting for the proceeds falls within the provision as squarely as the one who left. Physical absence makes the case easier to prove; it is not what the article requires, and a petition that describes the neglect concretely is stronger than one that merely alleges it.
Build the three-month record
The presumption is your friend only if you can date it. Fix when the spouse left and what has happened since: the last day at the conjugal dwelling, the last message or remittance, attempts to make contact and the replies or silence that followed, and statements from people who know where he is or does not want to be found. Pair that with the property picture — titles, bank accounts, the business, anything that could be sold while you wait — because which of the three remedies to ask for depends on what is at risk of disappearing.
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.
- David A. Noveras vs. Leticia T. Noveras AM. No. P-06-2227 August 19, 2014 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Atty. Mario N. Melchor, Former Clerk of Court VI, RTC, Br. 16, Naval, Biliran (now Presiding Judge, MCTC, Calubian-San Isidro, Leyte), G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →