Text of the provision
Art. 89. No waiver of rights, shares and effects of the absolute community of property during the marriage can be made except in case of judicial separation of property. When the waiver takes place upon a judicial separation of property, or after the marriage has been dissolved or annulled, the same shall appear in a public instrument and shall be recorded as provided in Article 77. The creditors of the spouse who made such waiver may petition the court to rescind the waiver to the extent of the amount sufficient to cover the amount of their credits.
(146a)
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
A spouse generally cannot give up their rights in the community property while the marriage is ongoing. A waiver is allowed only in the narrow case of a judicial separation of property, or once the marriage has been dissolved or annulled — and even then it must be in a public instrument and recorded under Article 77 to have effect.
The final sentence adds a creditor safeguard: if a spouse waives their share, that spouse's creditors can ask the court to rescind the waiver up to the amount they are owed. This prevents a debtor-spouse from waiving away assets to escape debts.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 88 — when the regime begins.
- Article 91 — what the waived shares consist of.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- 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 →
- Willem Beumer vs. Avelina Amores, G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012 — 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.