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.
Related provisions
- Article 70 — how family obligations are ordinarily funded.
Cases interpreting this article
- Authorities on Article 73 objections to a spouse's profession or business will be added here as each is verified against primary sources.