Short answer. Both spouses are jointly responsible. The law does not place the duty to support the family on the husband alone — the spouses are jointly responsible for the family's support, and the funding source follows a set order: community property first, then income from separate property, then the separate properties themselves.
What the law says
The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family.
Family Code, Article 70 — Joint Responsibility for Family Support. Read the full provision →
A shared duty, not a husband's duty
The statute is explicit that the spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. Nothing in the text places the primary or sole burden on either spouse by reason of sex. Both a husband and a wife carry this responsibility together, regardless of who earns more, who manages the household, or which spouse's name is on a particular asset.
Where the money comes from, in order
The law also fixes the order in which family support is funded. Expenses for support and other conjugal obligations are first paid from the community property. If there is no community property, they come from the income or fruits of the spouses' separate properties. Only if that income or those fruits are insufficient or absent does the obligation reach into the separate properties themselves. This order applies regardless of which spouse's joint responsibility is being satisfied — the source of funds is not tied to which spouse the money is coming from.
What joint responsibility does not mean
Joint responsibility does not mean each spouse must contribute an identical peso amount, nor does it require both spouses to be earning income before the duty applies — a spouse who is not employed outside the home is not thereby excused, since the obligation is framed around the family's needs and the available property, not around each spouse's individual paycheck. It also does not by itself resolve disputes over how much support is owed or to whom within the family; this provision establishes who is responsible and how it is funded, not the amount.
Why this framing matters in practice
Treating support as a joint responsibility, rather than a duty resting on one spouse, matters when a family's assets and income come from both sides of the marriage in different proportions. A spouse who contributes less in cash income but manages the home, or who holds separate property that could fund the family's needs if community property runs short, remains within this joint framework rather than standing outside it. Neither spouse can point to the other and claim the entire burden belongs there by default.
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.
- Kristine Calubaquib-Diaz vs. Dino Lopez Diaz, G.R. No. 235033, October 12, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Christian Pantonial Acharon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rosanna L. Tan-Andal vs. Mario Victor M. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jeffrey M. Calma vs. Mari Kris Santos-Calma, G.R. No. 242070, August 24, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →