Short answer. Yes. The absolute community is liable for expenses that let either spouse begin or finish a professional or vocational course, or another self-improvement activity. It is a direct charge on the community, not a loan — nothing is deducted from your spouse's share when the community is later liquidated.
What the law says
Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional or vocational course, or other activity for self-improvement
Family Code, Article 94 — Charges on the Community Property. Read the full provision →
Schooling is a listed charge, not a favour
The Family Code sets out what the absolute community answers for, and education for a spouse is on that list in its own right. The wording is deliberately wide. It covers expenses to commence or complete a course, so both starting out and finishing something already begun will qualify. It covers a professional course and a vocational one equally, and then adds other activity for self-improvement, which reaches training that leads to no diploma at all. You do not have to show that the family profited from it.
It applies to whichever of you is studying
The clause says either spouse. There is no rule that the earning spouse subsidises the studying one as a matter of grace, and no requirement that the studying spouse repay the community afterwards. This is worth stating plainly, because it is often assumed to work the other way — that the spouse who did not study acquires a claim on the value of a degree the marriage paid for. The article creates no such claim. The expense is simply a charge on community funds.
Paying with community money is different from borrowing
Draw a line between two situations. If community funds are spent directly on tuition, this clause applies and the analysis stops there. If instead your spouse borrows to pay tuition, the loan is a debt, and debts are governed by the separate clauses of the same article on obligations contracted during the marriage — which turn on whether both of you consented, or on the extent to which the family benefited. The source of the money changes which rule you are under, so it is worth knowing which one you are in.
A related clause covers the children, not the spouses
The article separately makes the community liable for what both spouses donate or promise in favour of their common legitimate children for the same purpose — commencing or completing a professional or vocational course or other self-improvement activity. That clause requires the act of both spouses, where the clause about a spouse's own schooling does not. If you are budgeting for a child's education out of community property, you are in the second clause, and the participation of both of you is written into its text.
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.
- Philippine National Bank vs. Venancio C. Reyes, Jr, G.R. No. 212483, October 5, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →