Short answer. Article 146 of the Family Code splits family expenses in proportion to each spouse's income, not equally. If income is insufficient or unavailable, the split shifts to the current market value of each spouse's separate properties instead. Either way, both spouses remain solidarily liable to creditors for those expenses.
What the law says
Both spouses shall bear the family expenses in proportion to their income, or, in case of insufficiency or default thereof, to the current market value of their separate properties. The liabilities of the spouses to creditors for family expenses shall, however, be solidary.
Family Code, Article 146 — Sharing Family Expenses; Solidary Liability to Creditors. Read the full provision →
Proportional to income, not split evenly
Article 146 rejects a straight fifty-fifty split as the default rule. It states that both spouses shall bear the family expenses in proportion to their income. If one spouse earns significantly more than the other, that spouse is expected to shoulder a correspondingly larger share of family expenses under this article — the obligation scales with earning capacity rather than being divided equally regardless of what each spouse actually brings in.
What happens when income is not enough
The article anticipates that income alone may not cover family needs. In that case, it shifts the basis: or, in case of insufficiency or default thereof, to the current market value of their separate properties. So the proportional-sharing principle does not disappear when income falls short — it simply switches its reference point from income to the current market value of each spouse's own separate property.
Toward creditors, the obligation is solidary regardless
The internal proportion between spouses is one question; what a creditor can collect is another, and the article treats them differently. It provides that the liabilities of the spouses to creditors for family expenses shall, however, be solidary. That means a creditor owed for family expenses is not limited to collecting each spouse's proportional share separately — either spouse can be held liable for the full amount owed, regardless of how the expense was internally divided between them under the first part of this article.
Working out your own proportional share
To apply this article to your situation, start with a clear picture of each spouse's actual income, and only turn to the value of separate properties if income genuinely falls short of covering family expenses. Keep records of both income and expenses, since disputes over this kind of proportional sharing usually turn on what each spouse was actually earning or holding at the relevant time, not on assumptions about what seems fair.
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.
- Lincoln L. Yao vs. Honorable Norma C. Perello, et al, G.R. No. 153828, October 24, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →