Short answer. Under Article 128 of the Family Code, the obligations to the family that trigger property remedies cover three areas: marital, parental, and property relations. A spouse who breaches any of these without just cause, or who abandons the other spouse, allows the aggrieved spouse to petition for receivership, judicial separation of property, or sole administration of conjugal property.
What the law says
The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital, parental or property relations.
Family Code, Article 128 — Abandonment and Failure of Obligations. Read the full provision →
The three categories of family obligations
Article 128 of the Family Code defines the obligations to the family in three broad categories. Marital relations cover the duties spouses owe each other — fidelity, cohabitation, and mutual support. Parental relations cover the duties owed to children — care, support, education, and exercise of parental authority. Property relations cover the duties that arise from the matrimonial property regime — the obligation to contribute to household expenses, to manage shared property faithfully, and not to alienate or encumber it improperly. A serious failure in any of these three areas can support a petition for property remedies.
Abandonment: what it means and how it is established
Alongside outright failure of obligations, Article 128 also covers abandonment: leaving the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. The law provides a practical presumption: a spouse who has been absent from the conjugal home for three months without returning, or who has failed within that same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts, is presumed to have no intention of returning. This presumption does not require proof of intent — the fact of absence and silence for three months is enough to trigger it, shifting the burden to the absent spouse.
The property remedies available
Article 128 makes three remedies available to the aggrieved spouse when abandonment or failure of obligations is established. First, receivership: the court appoints a third party to take over and manage the conjugal property. Second, judicial separation of property: the court formally divides the conjugal assets so each spouse manages their own. Third, authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property — the aggrieved spouse continues managing all the assets but does so alone, without the defaulting spouse's participation. The court may attach conditions to whichever remedy it grants.
The 'without just cause' requirement
The remedies are not available whenever a spouse simply disagrees with the other's decisions. Article 128 requires that the failure or abandonment be without just cause. A spouse who leaves the family home because of physical violence or serious mistreatment may have just cause. A spouse who stops contributing financially because of genuine incapacity — illness, unemployment — may also have a defensible explanation. The aggrieved spouse must show not only that the obligations were breached but that there was no sufficient justification for the breach. What qualifies as just cause depends on the facts and, ultimately, on the court's assessment.
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 →
- Imelda Relucio vs. Angelina Mejia Lopez, G.R. No. 138497, January 16, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →