Short answer. No. Article 127 states that separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of conjugal partnership. The property regime stays intact even after you stop living together — what changes are specific consequences: support rights for the spouse who left, a need for court authorization for certain transactions, and possible liability of separate property.
What the law says
The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of conjugal partnership, except that: (1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause, shall not have the right to be supported;
Family Code, Article 127 — Separation in Fact. Read the full provision →
The partnership survives; only specific rules kick in
Article 127 opens by saying separation in fact shall not affect the regime of conjugal partnership, then lists exceptions — not a termination, but adjustments layered onto a partnership that is still legally in place. Property acquired by either spouse during the separation, if it otherwise qualifies, generally remains conjugal in character; you cannot treat your earnings after moving out as automatically your own separate property just because you are no longer living under the same roof. The regime ends through the legal grounds that actually dissolve it, not through the fact of physical separation alone.
The support penalty for leaving without just cause
The first consequence targets the spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause: that spouse loses the right to be supported. Whether the departure had just cause is the pivotal question — a spouse who left because of abuse, danger, or another legitimate reason is in a different position than one who simply walked away. The penalty attaches to the reason for the separation, not to the separation itself, which is consistent with the article's overall approach of adjusting specific rights rather than dissolving the property regime.
Transactions and support during the separation
The remaining exceptions deal with the practical difficulty of running a conjugal partnership when the spouses are no longer coordinating day to day. Where the law would normally require one spouse's consent to a transaction, that consent can instead come from a court through a summary proceeding. And where conjugal property is not enough to support the family, each spouse's separate property becomes solidarily liable for that support, with the present spouse able to petition for authority to administer or use the other's separate property toward it. These mechanisms exist because the partnership continues, and someone still has to be able to act for it.
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.
- Arturo Sarte Flores vs. Sps. Enrico L. Lindo, Jr. and Edna C. Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →