The menu, in the Code's own words
Article 75 of the Family Code (read the provision) both opens the menu and closes it if you never order:
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.
Three named regimes, one open category, and a default that takes over by itself. Note the second failure mode in that sentence: a settlement whose chosen regime is void lands you in the same place as having signed nothing. Drafting is not decoration here.
Absolute community — the one you get by default
Article 91 sets the size of the pool: unless otherwise provided in that chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property "shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter." Article 88 fixes when it starts — "at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated" — and voids any stipulation, express or implied, setting a different start date.
For a Filipino-foreign couple this is usually the surprise. The flat the foreign partner bought in Sydney at thirty, the savings built up over a decade of overseas work, the small business one of you already runs — all of it defaults into the community. In Nayve-Pua v. Union Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 253450, January 22, 2024, Second Division) the statutory regime applied for exactly the reason it usually does, "absent any proof showing that the spouses entered into a marriage settlement," and the Court added the sting: "when the property is acquired during the marriage, the burden of proof is upon the spouse claiming the property's exclusivity to establish it." See the default regime explained.
Conjugal partnership of gains — the middle option
Article 75 names it between the two poles, and the Family Code gives it a chapter of its own. We deliberately do not compress that chapter into a sentence on this page. Couples reach for it when absolute community feels like too much and complete separation feels like too little, and whether it does what a particular couple has in mind is decided by the provisions themselves, not by a summary someone read online. If it is on your shortlist, we go through the articles with you before anything is drafted.
Complete separation — and proof that it holds
This is the option most Filipino-foreign couples come in asking about, and there is a Supreme Court decision enforcing it. In Delgado v. GQ Realty Development Corp. (G.R. No. 241774, September 25, 2019, Second Division) the spouses signed an ante-nuptial agreement on June 15, 1987 and married on June 20, 1987. The Court quoted its operative clause:
(1) All the property, real and personal, now owned or hereafter to be owned by [petitioner Francisco] shall remain his own exclusive and separate property, subject to his sole disposition, administration and enjoyment; while those of [Victoria] shall likewise remain her own absolute property, subject to her sole disposition, administration and enjoyment.
Years later the husband sued to recover a property he said he had paid for. The agreement he had signed defeated him: "under the Ante-Nuptial Agreement, petitioner Francisco unequivocally discharged any and all interest over all gifts that he had bestowed upon Victoria." Separation of property is not a polite fiction. It is a regime courts apply on the document's plain terms.
Note too what else that same agreement carried — an undertaking that "the maintenance, support and care of [Victoria] shall be borne solely by him." Separation of property and generosity are not opposites. Hindi ito kawalan ng tiwala; kalinawan ito para sa dalawa.
"Any other regime" — real room, real limits
Article 75's fourth option is genuine drafting space, and three limits run through it. Article 88 voids any attempt to move the commencement of a community regime. Article 84 provides that where the future spouses agree upon a regime other than absolute community, they "cannot donate to each other in their marriage settlements more than one-fifth of their present property," and "Any excess shall be considered void." And no stipulation can hand a foreign spouse rights over Philippine land — see which country's law governs and our note on anti-dummy exposure.
The drafting lesson, stated by the Court
The most useful paragraph in Delgado is not about regimes at all. It is about who pays for ambiguity:
Hence, if petitioner Francisco really intended to take out from the coverage of the Ante-Nuptial Agreement properties that were given to Victoria but registered in the name of her holding company, he could have easily included a provision to that effect in the agreement in order to eradicate any ambiguity and misinterpretation. It is elementary that any ambiguity in a contract whose terms are susceptible of different interpretations must be read against the party who drafted it, who in this case was petitioner Francisco.
The spouse who brings the lawyer bears the cost of every gap. That is why we insist both parties be independently advised, and why the disclosure step in listing what each of you brings in is not paperwork — it is the regime, made specific. Start with the form requirements, then book a consultation — and if one of you is still overseas, see how we work with clients abroad.
Frequently asked questions
What regime applies if we choose nothing?
Absolute community of property. Article 75 says that 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 the Family Code shall govern. In Nayve-Pua v. Union Bank of the Philippines the Supreme Court applied the statutory regime precisely because there was no proof that the spouses had entered into a marriage settlement.
Do Philippine courts actually enforce complete separation of property?
In Delgado v. GQ Realty Development Corp., decided in 2019, the Supreme Court enforced an ante-nuptial agreement placing the spouses under complete separation of property, and held that the husband had discharged any and all interest over the gifts he had bestowed on his wife. His reconveyance claim over a property he said he had paid for was treated as waived by the agreement he signed.
Can we design our own regime instead of picking one of the three?
Article 75 lets future spouses agree upon absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime. That last phrase is real drafting room, but it is not unlimited. Article 88 voids any stipulation moving the start of the community regime away from the moment the marriage is celebrated, Article 84 caps donations between spouses in a non-community settlement at one-fifth of present property, and no clause can give a foreign spouse rights over Philippine land.
Does separation of property mean we stop supporting each other?
Not unless you draft it that way. The agreement enforced in Delgado combined complete separation of property with an express undertaking that the maintenance, support and care of the wife would be borne solely by the husband, and that any gift he made to her would become her exclusive property. A regime sets who owns what. What each of you commits to do for the other is a separate set of clauses.