Text of the provision
Art. 67. The agreement to revive the former property regime referred to in the preceding Article shall be executed under oath and shall specify:
(1) The properties to be contributed anew to the restored regime;
(2) Those to be retained as separated properties of each spouse; and
(3) The names of all their known creditors, their addresses and the amounts owing to each.
The agreement of revival and the motion for its approval shall be filed with the court in the same proceeding for legal separation, with copies of both furnished to the creditors named therein. After due hearing, the court shall, in its order, take measure to protect the interest of creditors and such order shall be recorded in the proper registries of properties.
The recording of the ordering[sic] in the registries of property shall not prejudice any creditor not listed or not notified, unless the debtor-spouse has sufficient separate properties to satisfy the creditor's claim.
(195a, 108a)
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. In the final sentence the official text reads "The recording of the ordering," evidently a printing error for "the order," carried identically by LawPhil and ChanRobles; it is marked [sic].
What this article means
Article 67 supplies the machinery for the one thing Article 66 leaves optional: reviving the couple's former property regime after they reconcile. Because the separation of property survives reconciliation by default, spouses who want their old regime back must execute a formal agreement under oath.
That agreement must spell out three things: the properties contributed anew to the restored regime, the properties each spouse keeps as separate, and a full list of known creditors — names, addresses and amounts owed. It is filed with the same court, with copies furnished to the named creditors, and approved only after a hearing.
The whole point is creditor protection
Reviving a shared property regime could otherwise be used to shuffle assets out of creditors' reach. Article 67 blocks that. The court must take steps to protect creditors' interests before approving the revival, and a creditor who was not listed or not notified is not prejudiced by the recording — unless the debtor-spouse has enough separate property to pay the claim anyway. The revival binds the spouses to each other, but it cannot be turned against the people they owe.
A note on the text
The final sentence of the official text reads "The recording of the ordering in the registries of property"; "the ordering" is an evident printing error for "the order," carried identically by both LawPhil and ChanRobles. We reproduce it as found and mark it [sic].
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 66 — reconciliation, after which this revival agreement becomes relevant.
- Article 65 — the joint manifestation of reconciliation.
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 →
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.