Short answer. Both spouses, jointly. The Family Code gives husband and wife together the right to fix the family domicile, and where they cannot agree, the decision goes to the court rather than to either spouse. Neither one has a casting vote by virtue of being the husband or the earner.
What the law says
The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide.
Family Code, Article 69 — Fixing the Family Domicile. Read the full provision →
A joint decision, by design
Article 69 of the Family Code opens with a deliberate allocation of power: The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. The subject of the sentence is both of them. This replaced an older rule under which the husband chose the residence and the wife was expected to follow, and the change was not cosmetic — it means a unilateral decision to relocate the family is not, by itself, an exercise of any right the Code recognises. Where the spouses agree, the agreement governs and no court is involved.
Deadlock goes to a judge, not to the stronger party
The article then handles the obvious problem: In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. That is the whole mechanism. There is no tie-breaker built into the marriage itself, no presumption in favour of the spouse who owns the house or earns more. A spouse who wants the family to move and cannot obtain agreement is expected to ask a court, and a spouse who refuses to move is not thereby in breach of anything until a court has ruled. In practice this is rarely litigated on its own, but it matters as the backdrop to disputes about abandonment and support.
Living apart can be authorised, within limits
Article 69 also allows the court to exempt one spouse from living with the other where that spouse should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. Overseas work is the most common real-world instance. The exemption is not unlimited: the article withholds it where it is not compatible with the solidarity of the family, which is the Code's way of saying the arrangement cannot be one that effectively dissolves family life. If a relocation or a foreign posting is in dispute in your household, that balance is what a court would be weighing.
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.
- Norlainie Mitmug Limbona vs. Commssion on Elections and Malik "Bobby" T. Alingan, G.R. No. 186006, October 16, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Norlainie Mitmug Limbona vs. Commission On Elections, et al, G.R. No. 181097, June 25, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- In the Matter of the Petition for habeas corpus of Potenciano Ilusorio, et al. vs. Erlinda K. Ilusorio-Bildner, et al, G.R. No. 139789, July 19, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Family Code, Article 69 — Fixing the Family Domicile
- Family Code, Article 68 — Mutual Obligations of Spouses