Short answer. No. Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title, which covers inheritances and donations, is excluded from the absolute community, and so are its fruits and income. The one exception is where the donor, testator or grantor expressly provides that it shall form part of the community.
What the law says
The following shall be excluded from the community property: (1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property;
Family Code, Article 92 — What Is Excluded from the Community. Read the full provision →
Gratuitous title is the operative phrase
The exclusion covers property acquired by gratuitous title, meaning received without giving value in return. An inheritance, whether by will or by intestate succession, is the clearest example; a donation is the other. What the phrase does not cover is anything you paid for during the marriage, however sentimental the source. A lot sold to you cheaply by a relative is still bought, not given, and falls into the community. The question a court asks is not who the property came from but whether you gave anything for it.
The rent and interest are excluded too
This point is missed constantly. The exclusion extends to the fruits as well as the income thereof, so the rent from an inherited building, the harvest from inherited land and the interest on an inherited deposit stay outside the community along with the asset itself. That is a departure from the older conjugal partnership approach, under which fruits of exclusive property were shared. Under the absolute community the inheritance and everything it throws off remain the inheriting spouse's own, unless the money is later mixed into community funds so thoroughly that nobody can tell it apart.
The giver can switch it off
The exclusion yields where it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property. A parent who wants a gift to benefit both spouses can say so in the deed or the will, and that instruction governs. The word doing the work is expressly. An intention inferred from the fact that the donor liked the son-in-law, or from a covering letter addressed to both, is not the same as a clause in the instrument. If the document is silent, the property is excluded.
Keep the inheritance identifiable
Being excluded in law is worth little if the asset cannot be traced in fact. Where the property is titled land the deed of extrajudicial settlement or the will and the resulting title usually settle it. Where it is money, the exclusion survives only as long as the trail does, so an inherited sum parked in a joint account and spent on household expenses becomes very hard to claim later. Keep the inherited funds in a separate account, keep the settlement documents, and record what any replacement asset was bought with. That record is what a lawyer will need.
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.
- Crispin Burgos D. Bariata vs. the Honorable Ombudsman Conchita C. Carpio-morales, Joselito A. Ojeda, and Dulde R. Quinto-ojeda, G.R. No. 234640, February 1, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lucila David and the Heirs of Rene F. Aguas, namely: Princess Luren D. Aguas, G.R. No. 241036, January 26, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of the Late Apolinario Caburnay, et al. vs. Heirs of Teodulo Sison, namely, G.R. No. 230934, December 2, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Brigido B. Quia vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al, G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →