Text of the provision
Art. 92. The following shall be excluded from the community property:
(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property;
(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of the community property;
(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property.
(201a)
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
Article 91 makes the community sweeping; Article 92 lists the exceptions — the property that stays separate. Three categories. Property received during the marriage by gratuitous title (gift or inheritance), and its fruits, unless the giver says otherwise (1); property for a spouse's personal and exclusive use — but pointedly not jewelry, which is community (2); and property brought in by a spouse who has legitimate descendants from a former marriage, protecting that first family's eventual inheritance (3).
The jewelry rule in (2) is the one people miss: however personal, jewelry belongs to the community. And (3) is a quiet but important protection for children of a prior marriage.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 91 — what the community property consists of (the default this excludes from).
- Article 93 — the presumption that property is community unless proven excluded.
Cases citing this article
- Crispin Burgos D. Bariata vs. the Honorable Ombudsman Conchita C. Carpio-morales, Joselito A. Ojeda, and Dulde R. Quinto-ojeda, G.R. No. 234640, February 1, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lucila David and the Heirs of Rene F. Aguas, namely: Princess Luren D. Aguas, G.R. No. 241036, January 26, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of the Late Apolinario Caburnay, et al. vs. Heirs of Teodulo Sison, namely, G.R. No. 230934, December 2, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Brigido B. Quia vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al, G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Elena Buenaventura Muller vs. Helmut Muller, G.R. No. 149615, August 29, 2006 — 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.