Short answer. Not her, if she left without just cause. A spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live in it without just cause loses the right to be supported. Everything else about the conjugal partnership survives the separation, including support for the family.
What the law says
The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of conjugal partnership, except that: (1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause, shall not have the right to be supported;
Family Code, Article 127 — Separation in Fact. Read the full provision →
Separating in fact changes very little
The article's opening clause is the one to absorb first: separation in fact shall not affect the regime of conjugal partnership. Living apart does not dissolve the partnership, does not divide the property, and does not convert either spouse's earnings into exclusive property. Only three consequences follow, and they are the three the article lists. Everything a couple assumes changes when one of them moves out — ownership, the ability to sell, the character of what is acquired afterwards — does not.
'Without just cause' is the whole question
The loss of the right to support is conditioned on the leaving being without just cause, and that is where these cases are actually fought. A spouse who leaves because the home has become unsafe, or because of the other's conduct, has not forfeited anything. So the husband's confident account that she left for no reason is a conclusion, not a fact, and it will be met with hers. Note also what the sentence does not touch: it withdraws support from that spouse, and says nothing about support for the children, which stands on an entirely different footing.
Consent problems do not disappear
The second exception is the practical one for property. Where the law requires one spouse's consent to a transaction, judicial authorization shall be obtained in a summary proceeding. So a husband whose wife has left still cannot sell or mortgage partnership property on his own; he goes to court for authority instead of to her for a signature. This is a substitute for consent, not a dispensation from it, and a disposition made without either remains void.
Both patrimonies still answer for the family
The third exception is easily missed and cuts against the spouse who left as much as the one who stayed. Where partnership property is insufficient, the separate property of both spouses shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family, and the present spouse may obtain judicial authority in a summary proceeding to administer or encumber specific separate property of the other. Before acting on any of this, gather the dates of the departure, what has been provided since, and the property records — and take advice, because the just-cause question is not one to answer for yourself.
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.
- Arturo Sarte Flores vs. Sps. Enrico L. Lindo, Jr. and Edna C. Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →