Short answer. Yes. Once a decree of legal separation is issued, the community property or conjugal partnership is dissolved and liquidated, and the offending spouse forfeits any share of the net profits earned during the marriage. Those forfeited profits do not return to the guilty spouse; they pass to whoever Article 43(2) designates.
What the law says
The absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2)
Family Code, Article 63 — Effects of the Decree of Legal Separation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the innocent spouse shall be revoked by operation of law.
Family Code, Article 63 — Effects of the Decree of Legal Separation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse
Family Code, Article 43 — Effects of Terminating a Subsequent Marriage. Read the full provision →
The property regime ends automatically
A decree of legal separation does not simply let spouses live apart while everything else continues. Article 63 says the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated the moment the decree issues, and in that same breath strips the spouse found at fault of any right to a share of the net profits the property regime earned. The innocent spouse keeps the ordinary process of liquidation, but the guilty spouse walks away from that specific forfeited share, not from the whole marriage estate.
Where the forfeited share actually goes
Forfeiture is not a windfall for the state or for the innocent spouse alone. Article 63 forfeits the share "in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2)", which directs that his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse. So the common children of the marriage are the first beneficiaries, and the innocent spouse only receives the forfeited share when there are no such children at all.
Only net profits are lost, not the original contribution
The forfeiture reaches net profits earned during the marriage, not everything the guilty spouse brought into the union. Property the offending spouse owned before the marriage, or acquired by gratuitous title, is never part of what gets forfeited under this rule, because it was never part of the profits the community or partnership earned. What is at stake is the increase in wealth the regime produced, and liquidation still has to identify and set aside that increase before forfeiture can even be applied.
Other consequences that come with the same decree
Property is not the only thing affected. The same Article 63 also provides that the offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession, and that provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the innocent spouse shall be revoked by operation of law. Custody of minor children likewise shifts to the innocent spouse. These consequences attach together once the decree becomes final, so a spouse weighing whether to contest a legal separation case should understand that the property forfeiture is only one part of what is on the line.
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.
- Brigido B. Quia vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al, G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- V. Maquilan vs. D. Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Elenita V. Macalinao, Kenneth V. Macalinao and Kristel V. Macalinao vs. Cerina, A.K.A. Cerena N. Macalinao and Cindy N. Ma, G.R. No. 250613, April 3, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 63 — Effects of the Decree of Legal Separation
- Family Code, Article 43 — Effects of Terminating a Subsequent Marriage