Short answer. Yes. The third ground for legal separation covers an attempt by your spouse to corrupt or induce a common child, a child of yours, or you, into prostitution — and also covers connivance in it. The attempt is enough; nothing needs to have succeeded.
What the law says
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
Family Code, Article 55 — Grounds for Legal Separation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
For purposes of this Article, the term 'child' shall include a child by nature or by adoption.
Family Code, Article 55 — Grounds for Legal Separation. Read the full provision →
The attempt is the ground
The clause speaks of an Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce, not of a result. A spouse who made the approach, applied the pressure, or set the arrangement up has given the ground whether or not anything followed. That is deliberate: the law does not require a parent to wait and see. Nor does the provision ask how the inducement was framed — an offer dressed up as work, as help with money, or as a favour to a relative is inducement all the same if that is where it was leading.
Connivance is expressly included
The ground also reaches connivance in such corruption or inducement. So a spouse who did not do the recruiting themselves, but who knew and went along with it, arranged the meetings, took the money or kept it from you, is within the clause. This matters because in real cases the person applying the pressure is often someone else in the household or outside it, and the spouse's role is to permit it. On the wording, permitting it is enough.
Which children are covered
The clause names the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, and the article adds that the term 'child' shall include a child by nature or by adoption. Your child from an earlier relationship is therefore protected by it, as is an adopted child; the ground does not belong only to parents of children shared with the respondent. And the first name on that list is you — an attempt directed at the petitioner personally is the same ground.
This is more than a family law problem
Conduct of this kind engages the criminal law and the child protection system, and those routes move on their own timetable and can act far more quickly than a legal separation case, which does nothing to protect a child while it is pending. Report it and get the child somewhere safe first. Keep whatever exists — messages, names, dates, who else was involved, any record made by a school, barangay or social worker — because that same material is what the legal separation petition will later rest on.
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.
- Aiko Yokogawa-Tan vs. Jonnell Tan and the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 254646, October 23, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Maria Vicia Carullo-Padua vs. Joselito Padua, G.R. No. 208258, April 27, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Arabelle J. Mendoza vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No. 157649, November 12, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lucita Estrella Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 126010, December 8,1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →