Text of the provision
Art. 145. Each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer and enjoy his or her own separate estate, without need of the consent of the other.
To each spouse shall belong all earnings from his or her profession, business or industry and all fruits, natural, industrial or civil, due or received during the marriage from his or her separate property.
(214a)
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 the heart of the regime. Under complete separation of property, each spouse is fully independent as to their own estate — they own it, possess it, manage it, enjoy it and may dispose of it without needing the other's consent.
Just as importantly, the gains stay separate too. Everything a spouse earns from their profession, business or industry, and all the fruits and income of their separate property, belong to that spouse alone. This is the sharpest contrast with the conjugal partnership, where those same earnings and fruits would be pooled (compare Article 117).
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 117 — by contrast, earnings and fruits are conjugal under the CPG.
- Article 146 — how family expenses are shared despite separate estates.
Cases citing this article
- Heirs of the Late Apolinario Caburnay, et al. vs. Heirs of Teodulo Sison, namely, G.R. No. 230934, December 2, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nicxon L. Perez, Jr. vs. Avegail Perez-Senerpida, assisted by her husband Mr. Senerprida, G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lincoln L. Yao vs. Honorable Norma C. Perello, et al, G.R. No. 153828, October 24, 2003 — 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.