Short answer. Yes. The article expressly allows an unmarried head of a family to constitute a family home on his or her own property. Marriage is not the qualification — heading a family is, and a single person supporting dependent parents in the household can be one.
What the law says
It may also be constituted by an unmarried head of a family on his or her own property.
Family Code, Article 156 — What Property May Be Constituted as a Family Home. Read the full provision →
The protection is for households, not for couples
It is easy to read a chapter of the Family Code as being about married people, and this sentence exists to say otherwise. The first part of the article deals with property of the community, the partnership, or a spouse; then comes the alternative, addressed to an unmarried head of a family. What the law is protecting is a dwelling that shelters a family from execution by creditors, and a household headed by one unmarried person needs that shelter as much as any other. Being single is not a disqualification, and never was.
Head of a family means dependants, in fact
The phrase carries the weight, and it is not satisfied by living alone. There has to be a family the person heads — people who actually live in the dwelling and depend on that person for support. Parents supported by an unmarried child are the classic case, and so are younger siblings or a dependent relative in the household. What matters is the reality of the arrangement rather than a title anyone claims: who resides there, who provides the support, and whether the dependence is real. A person supporting parents who live elsewhere is in a different position.
It must be your own property
The sentence says on his or her own property, which is a real limit. An unmarried head of a family cannot constitute a family home over a house belonging to a relative, however long the household has lived in it and whoever pays for its upkeep. Where the house is co-owned with siblings — a common situation with an inherited family house — the ownership question has to be sorted out first, because the protection attaches to property the constituting person owns, not to property they happen to occupy.
Only one, and the dependants matter
Two things are worth checking before relying on this. A person may constitute, or be the beneficiary of, only one family home, so someone already covered by a family home elsewhere cannot add a second. And the protection is bound up with the beneficiaries, so their status is part of the picture rather than background. Keep proof of residence, of the dependants' relationship to you, and of your ownership of the property, and take advice promptly if a creditor is already moving against the house.
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.
- Urduja Ortiz-Aquino vs. Letecia Ortillo, Lisette Ortillo, And Sheriff Of The Office Of The Provincial Sheriff Of Lingayen, Pangasinan, G.R. No. 257235, November 8, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cesar D. Taruc vs. Angelina D. Maximo, Maricel Buenaventura, George Jordan, and Jennifer Burgos, G.R. No. 227728, September 28, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →