Short answer. Yes, but only through a sworn agreement the court approves. Article 67 requires the revival agreement to be executed under oath and to specify the properties contributed anew, those each spouse keeps separate, and every known creditor. It is filed with a motion for approval in the legal separation case itself.
What the law says
the separation of property and any forfeiture of the share of the guilty spouse already effected shall subsist, unless the spouses agree to revive their former property regime
Family Code, Article 66 — Consequences of Reconciliation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The agreement to revive the former property regime referred to in the preceding Article shall be executed under oath and shall specify: (1) The properties to be contributed anew to the restored regime; (2) Those to be retained as separated properties of each spouse; and (3) The names of all their known creditors, their addresses and the amounts owing to each.
Family Code, Article 67 — Reviving the Former Property Regime. Read the full provision →
Reconciling does not restore the regime by itself
This is the point most couples get wrong. Reconciliation terminates a pending legal separation case and sets aside a final decree, but the Code is explicit that the separation of property, and any forfeiture of the guilty spouse's share already carried out, shall subsist unless the spouses agree to revive their former regime. Living together again, resuming joint accounts, and telling everyone the matter is closed changes nothing about how the law characterises the property. The regime that was dissolved stays dissolved until a positive step is taken, and that step has a prescribed form.
Three things the agreement must actually say
Article 67 does not accept a general statement of intention. The agreement must be executed under oath, and it must specify the properties to be contributed anew to the restored regime, those to be retained as the separate property of each spouse, and the names, addresses and amounts owing to all known creditors. The first two requirements mean the couple has to decide, asset by asset, what goes back in and what stays out — the revival is not automatically a return to the exact position before the separation. Anything not contributed anew simply remains separate, and vague drafting here creates the dispute the document was meant to prevent.
Why the creditors are named
The formality exists for people who are not in the room. Both the agreement and the motion for its approval are filed with the court in the same legal separation proceeding, with copies furnished to the creditors named. After hearing, the court is directed to take measures to protect the creditors' interest, and its order is recorded in the proper registries of property. The reason is that moving assets back into a shared regime changes what a creditor can reach. That is also why the article warns that recording in the registries does not prejudice a creditor who was not listed or not notified, unless the debtor-spouse has enough separate property to satisfy the claim.
What to prepare before drafting anything
Three lists do most of the work. First, a current inventory of what each spouse owns and how it was acquired, which is what the contribution and retention clauses will be built from. Second, an honest schedule of debts on both sides, with names, addresses and balances, because an omitted creditor is the flaw the article specifically anticipates. Third, the record of the legal separation case itself, since the motion belongs in that proceeding rather than in a new one. A revival agreement drafted without the debt schedule is the version most likely to be sent back.
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 →
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 67 — Reviving the Former Property Regime
- Family Code, Article 66 — Consequences of Reconciliation