Text of the provision
Art. 128. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligation to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose.
The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital, parental or property relations.
A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling.
(167a, 191a)
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
When a spouse abandons the family without just cause, or fails its obligations, the aggrieved spouse is not helpless. They may ask the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or to be made sole administrator of the conjugal partnership.
The article defines the terms so they cannot be argued away. "Obligations to the family" means marital, parental or property relations. Abandonment means leaving the home with no intention of returning — and the law supplies a presumption: a spouse gone for three months, or who gives no word of their whereabouts for that long, is presumed to have no intention of returning.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 101 — the parallel abandonment remedy for the absolute community.
- Article 127 — the milder case of mere separation in fact.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
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.