Short answer. Yes. The Family Code makes spouses jointly responsible for supporting the family, and it sets an order of payment: first the community property, then the income or fruits of their separate properties, and only if those fall short, the separate properties themselves.

What the law says

The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate properties.

Family Code, Article 70 — Joint Responsibility for Family Support. Read the full provision →

Joint responsibility, regardless of who earns

Article 70 of the Family Code begins with the rule most households assume but few can point to: The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The obligation attaches to both spouses as spouses. It does not track who earns more, whose name is on the payslip, or which of them manages the money, and it is not suspended because one spouse works unpaid at home. A spouse who contributes nothing to household expenses is not exercising a choice the Code leaves open — they are in breach of an obligation the Code imposes.

The Code says which pocket the money comes from first

What makes Article 70 practically useful is the payment order it lays down. Family support and other conjugal obligations are paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate properties. Only where that income or those fruits are insufficient or absent does the obligation reach the separate properties themselves. So exclusive property is not immune, but it is last in line — a creditor or a spouse cannot start there while community assets or the income of separate assets remain available.

Why the sequence matters in a real dispute

The order becomes decisive in two familiar situations. In a marriage where one spouse has stopped contributing, it identifies exactly which assets can be reached and in what sequence, rather than leaving the answer to negotiation. And when a property regime is later liquidated, expenses met out of the wrong pocket generate reimbursement claims between the spouses and against the community. Keeping some record of what was spent, and from which source, is what turns those claims from an argument about memory into something a court can actually compute. The spouse who paid family expenses out of exclusive funds while community assets were available is the one with most to gain from having kept it.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.