Text of the provision
Art. 73. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without the consent of the other. The latter may object only on valid, serious, and moral grounds.
In case of disagreement, the court shall decide whether or not:
(1) The objection is proper, and
(2) Benefit has occurred to the family prior to the objection or thereafter.
If the benefit accrued prior to the objection, the resulting obligation shall be enforced against the separate property of the spouse who has not obtained consent. The foregoing provisions shall not prejudice the rights of creditors who acted in good faith.
(117a)
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
Either spouse may pursue a legitimate profession, occupation, business, or activity without needing the other's consent. The other spouse may object, but only on valid, serious, and moral grounds — not on a whim. If they disagree, the court decides both whether the objection is proper and whether the family already benefited from the activity.
The financial consequence turns on timing: if the family benefited before the objection was raised, the resulting obligation is enforced against the separate property of the spouse who acted without consent — not the community property. Creditors who dealt with that spouse in good faith are protected regardless.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 70 — how family obligations are ordinarily funded.
Cases citing this article
- XXX vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 252739, April 16, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Christian Pantonial Acharon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224946, November 9, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Edward Cumigad y De Castro vs. AAA, G.R. No. 219715, December 6, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- XXX vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 221370, June 28, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- XXX vs. People of the Philippines Standard Chartered Bank, G.R. No. 252087, February 10, 2021 — 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.