Short answer. Only moderate gifts on the occasion of a family rejoicing. Every other donation or grant of gratuitous advantage between spouses during the marriage, direct or indirect, is void. The same prohibition reaches partners living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
What the law says
Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing.
Family Code, Article 87 — Donations Between Spouses Are Void. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
Family Code, Article 87 — Donations Between Spouses Are Void. Read the full provision →
Void, not merely challengeable
The word the article uses is void, and it is worth pausing on. A void transfer is not one that somebody has to attack in order to undo; it never took effect at all, and nobody's silence over the years cures it. That has consequences well beyond the couple. A donation between spouses that has sat unquestioned for a decade can be raised when an estate is settled, when creditors come looking, or when a buyer's counsel examines the chain of title on a property that moved between husband and wife. Time does not make it good.
‘Direct or indirect’ is the phrase that closes the loopholes
The prohibition is not confined to a deed of donation naming one spouse as donor and the other as donee. It reaches every grant of gratuitous advantage, and it reaches it whether the route is direct or indirect. Structures built to arrive at the same destination by a longer road — a transfer routed through a sibling or a parent, a sale at a nominal price, a company interest put in a spouse's name for nothing — are exactly what that language is aimed at. The question a court would ask is not what the paperwork is called but whether one spouse received something for nothing at the other's expense.
What the exception actually permits
The carve-out for gifts between spouses has two limits and both bite. The gift must be moderate, which is a relative measure judged against the couple's means rather than a fixed sum, and it must be given on the occasion of a family rejoicing — a birthday, an anniversary, a graduation, a fiesta. So an ordinary present is fine, and it is meant to be. A car, a lot, or a transfer of a bank account is not saved by being handed over at a birthday dinner, because the occasion satisfies only one of the two conditions the article sets.
Live-in partners are covered too
The final sentence extends the prohibition to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, which catches many couples who assume the rule is a burden of marriage they have avoided. The practical guidance is the same for both groups. Before moving a significant asset between partners, establish what the transfer is in substance and whether anything of real value is passing without consideration. Where property is genuinely meant to be shared, the question to bring to a lawyer is how it should be acquired or held in the first place — not how to transfer it afterwards.
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.
- Nicxon L. Perez, Jr. vs. Avegail Perez-Senerpida, assisted by her husband Mr. Senerprida, G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cirila Arcaba vs. Erlinda Tabancura Vda. De Batocael, et al, G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Edgardo Santos, et al. vs. Maria D. Santos and/or her Successors-in-interest, G.R. No. 250774, June 16, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Emilie B. Sumbad, et al. vs. Court of Appeals & Eduard Okoren, et al, G.R. No. 106060, June 21, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →