Text of the provision
Art. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved.
(160a)
Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, approved July 6, 1987. The Code took effect on August 3, 1988 (Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005). Reproduced in full.
What this article means
This is one of the most litigated rules in Philippine property law. Anything a couple acquires during the marriage is presumed conjugal — it belongs to the partnership — even if the title, contract or registration names only one spouse.
The presumption is not conclusive: it can be overcome, but only by proof that the property is in fact exclusive (for example, that it was inherited, or bought entirely with a spouse's own separate funds). Merely showing that the title is in one name is not enough — the burden falls on whoever claims the property is not conjugal.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 117 — the specific enumeration of conjugal partnership property.
- Article 105 — when the conjugal partnership of gains applies.
Cases citing this article
- Metropolitan Bank & Trust, Co. vs. Nicholson Pascual a.k.a. Nelson Pascual, G.R. No. 163744, February 29, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Procopio Villanueva, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Romeo Anastacio, Sr. and Norma T. Anastacio vs. Heirs of the Late Spouses, G.R. No. 224572, August 27, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, et al. vs. Jose B. Tan, et al, G.R. No. 163712, November 30, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Fatima B. Gonzales-asdala Vs Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 257982, February 22, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.