Short answer. Yes. A prenuptial agreement, called a marriage settlement under Philippine law, is valid if the future spouses put it in writing and sign it before the wedding; it only takes effect once the marriage is celebrated. Couples may choose complete separation of property, conjugal partnership of gains, or another regime entirely.
What the law says
The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime.
Family Code, Article 75 — Choosing the Property Regime in Marriage Settlements. Read the full provision →
What the law says
In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property as established in this Code shall govern.
Family Code, Article 75 — Choosing the Property Regime in Marriage Settlements. Read the full provision →
What Article 75 actually allows
Article 75 of the Family Code confirms that prospective spouses may enter into a marriage settlement before their wedding and choose the property regime that will govern their marriage: absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or a regime they design themselves within what the law allows. This is what people usually mean by a 'prenuptial agreement' in the Philippines — not a document about who gets what in a breakup the way it might abroad, but a contract about how the couple's property will be owned, managed, and divided during and after the marriage. If the couple signs no such agreement, or the one they sign turns out to be void, the marriage is not left unregulated — the absolute community of property regime applies automatically.
Why couples use one
Couples reach for a marriage settlement for practical reasons: to keep property acquired before the marriage, or a family business, separate from what the couple builds together; to protect an expected inheritance from becoming shared property; or simply because they prefer the predictability of complete separation of property over the default community regime. None of this affects a couple's support obligations to each other or to their children, which the law imposes regardless of which property regime the couple chooses. A marriage settlement changes how property is owned and divided — it does not opt either spouse out of the duties that come with marriage itself.
The default if there is no valid settlement
Most Philippine couples marry without ever signing a marriage settlement, and that is not a problem — Article 75 itself supplies the fallback. In the absence of a settlement, or when the one the couple agreed to turns out to be void, the absolute community of property automatically governs the marriage. Under that default regime, nearly everything either spouse owned before the wedding or acquires afterward becomes part of one common pool owned by both, subject only to a narrow set of exceptions. A couple who wants something different from that default outcome is exactly who a marriage settlement is for.
What to keep in mind before signing
Because a marriage settlement is meant to bind the couple for the life of the marriage, it deserves the same care as any other significant contract — both spouses should understand exactly what regime they are choosing and what that will mean in practice, whether at separation, annulment, or death. The right choice depends heavily on each spouse's own circumstances: existing property, family businesses, expected inheritances, and each partner's comfort with shared versus separate ownership. No single regime is automatically better for every couple; complete separation of property suits some, absolute community suits others, and the decision is worth thinking through carefully rather than signing whatever draft is put in front of you.
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.
- David A. Noveras vs. Leticia T. Noveras AM. No. P-06-2227 August 19, 2014 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Atty. Mario N. Melchor, Former Clerk of Court VI, RTC, Br. 16, Naval, Biliran (now Presiding Judge, MCTC, Calubian-San Isidro, Leyte), G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →