Short answer. Yes, in a narrow way. Article 25 lets the courts stop thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency. The power is triggered only at the request of a government or private charitable institution, not by any private complainant.
What the law says
Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.
Civil Code, Article 25 — Restraint of Thoughtless Extravagance. Read the full provision →
A moral rule the courts can enforce
Article 25 gives the courts an unusual, conscience-driven power. It provides that thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts. The idea is that when the community is suffering — during famine, disaster, or grave emergency — flaunting wealth on lavish, purely for-show spending offends public decency and can inflame social unrest. The article lets a court order such spending stopped. It is a rare instance where the Civil Code steps in to restrain private consumption, reflecting the Code's broader aim of promoting social solidarity and human dignity, not merely settling private quarrels over money.
The conditions are strict
The power does not reach ordinary spending. Three elements must line up. First, the spending must be thoughtless extravagance — reckless, excessive display, not prudent or necessary expense. Second, it must be for pleasure or display, meaning show and enjoyment rather than genuine need; buying essentials, or even comfortable but sensible things, is not covered. Third, it must occur during a period of acute public want or emergency. Everyday luxury in normal times, however distasteful some may find it, falls outside the article. The provision targets the specific evil of ostentatious waste at a moment when others around are in real distress, and nothing broader than that.
Who may ask, and what it does not do
Just as important is who can invoke it. The court acts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution — not at the request of a neighbor, a rival, or a random member of the public. This channels the remedy through bodies concerned with public welfare and relief, and guards against its use as a tool for personal spite or envy. The article authorizes stopping the extravagant spending; it is not a general license to seize wealth, punish the spender, or redistribute property. Its reach is deliberately confined to halting the wasteful display itself, during the emergency, when a qualified charitable or government institution brings the matter to court.
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.
- Victoria Segovia, et al. vs. The Climate Change Commission, represented by its Chairman, His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino, et al, G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →