Text of the provision
Art. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime. In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property as established in this Code shall govern.
(119a)
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
Future spouses are free to choose their property regime in a marriage settlement — absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime they design. But if they never execute a settlement, or the one they agreed to turns out to be void, the Code's own absolute community of property regime governs by default.
This default is why most Filipino marriages, having no prenuptial agreement, are automatically under absolute community — broadly, everything either spouse owned before the marriage or acquires during it becomes common property, subject to specific exclusions elsewhere in the Code.
Questions about this provision
- Are prenuptial agreements valid in the Philippines?
- What law governs our property if we never signed a prenuptial agreement?
Related provisions
- Article 74 — the hierarchy of sources this default regime fills.
- Article 77 — the formalities a marriage settlement must satisfy.
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.