Short answer. No. Article 92 of the Family Code creates an exception: while property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse is generally excluded from the community, jewelry is expressly carved out of that exception. Jewelry forms part of the community property regardless of who wears it or how it was purchased.
What the law says
Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of the community property
Family Code, Article 92 — What Is Excluded from the Community. Read the full provision →
The general rule and the jewelry exception
Article 92 of the Family Code lists three categories of property excluded from the absolute community: property received by gift or inheritance, property for personal and exclusive use, and property owned before the marriage when legitimate descendants from a prior marriage exist. The second category — personal and exclusive use — sounds like it would cover jewelry worn only by one spouse. But the article immediately carves out jewelry: jewelry forms part of the community property, not an exclusion from it. The exception swallows what might otherwise seem obvious.
Why jewelry is treated differently from other personal items
Clothing, toiletries, and strictly personal items belong to the spouse who uses them and are excluded from the community. The Family Code draws a line at jewelry because of its value and its nature as an asset — jewelry is typically purchased or received as an investment, a display of wealth, or a family asset, not merely a consumable personal item. Because jewelry tends to retain and even increase in value, the law includes it in the community to prevent one spouse from accumulating significant community wealth in a form that could be hidden or kept as personal property.
What this means in a separation or annulment
If the marriage is dissolved — whether by annulment, declaration of nullity, or legal separation — the community property is liquidated and divided between the spouses. Jewelry acquired during the marriage with community funds is part of that pool and must be accounted for. A spouse cannot simply claim the jewelry as personal property and keep it outside the division. Both spouses have an equal share in the community, which includes all jewelry acquired during the marriage, regardless of which spouse wears or possesses it.
What about jewelry received as a gift or inheritance?
Article 92's first category — property acquired by gratuitous title, meaning gifts and inheritances — is separate from the jewelry exception. If your spouse received jewelry as a genuine gift from a parent or relative, that jewelry is excluded from the community under the first category, not the second. The jewelry exception in the second paragraph applies specifically when personal-use property would otherwise be excluded. Jewelry received as a gift is handled by the gratuitous-title exclusion, and the jewelry carve-out does not override it. Whether particular jewelry was gifted or purchased from community funds is a factual question that can be critical in settlement discussions.
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 →