One sentence, four working parts
Article 77 of the Family Code (read the provision in full) is the whole of the form requirement:
Art. 77. The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be in writing, signed by the parties and executed before the celebration of the marriage. They shall not prejudice third persons unless they are registered in the local civil registry where the marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties.
Four working parts: in writing, signed by the parties, executed before the celebration of the marriage, and — for any effect on someone outside the marriage — registered in two different offices. Nothing further down this page is a new rule. It is these four, applied.
A word on how we state them. We searched for Supreme Court decisions voiding a marriage settlement for want of writing, of signature, or for having been signed after the wedding, and found none. That is not a sign the requirements are soft. It is a sign that a rule this plain rarely gets litigated. So this page says Article 77 requires, and never the Supreme Court has struck down.
In writing, signed by the parties
The signing is the easy half. The hard half is that whatever the two of you meant has to actually be on the page. In Delgado v. GQ Realty Development Corp. (G.R. No. 241774, September 25, 2019, Second Division) a husband who had signed an ante-nuptial agreement later argued that a particular property, bought with his own funds, was never meant to be covered by it. The Court was unmoved:
Assuming that petitioner Francisco really used his own funds to buy the subject property and that he intended to preserve his interest in the subject property, petitioner Francisco's failure to reduce such intention into writing and place protective measures to secure his alleged interest over the subject property in the Ante-Nuptial Agreement and in any other document is clearly contrary to human experience.
An intention that never reached the document was treated as no intention at all. For a Filipino-foreign couple with a business in one country, a pension in another and a condominium here, that is the operative warning: every carve-out has to be written, named and described. See protecting assets you bring into the marriage.
Executed before the celebration of the marriage
The third requirement is a date, and it is unforgiving. Delgado models the correct sequence exactly: the ante-nuptial agreement was dated June 15, 1987 and the marriage followed on June 20, 1987. Article 76 closes the back door for later changes — any modification of a settlement "must be made before the celebration of the marriage," subject to the specific articles it lists. We treat this as the hub's single most important practical point and give it its own page.
Notarization: not in the article, standard in practice
Article 77 says nothing about a notary. We notarize every settlement regardless, for two reasons that have nothing to do with the text and everything to do with what happens afterwards. The registration offices in the next section work with notarized instruments. And a document whose execution nobody can credibly dispute is what ends an argument early. In Delgado, the husband's reconveyance claim was disposed of on affirmative defenses at a preliminary hearing, without a full trial, because the agreement's genuineness and due execution had never been denied under oath:
Further, with respect to the existence, genuineness, and due execution of the Ante-Nuptial Agreement, no further evidence is needed to establish the same.
Registration: two offices, not one
This is the step couples skip. Article 77's second sentence makes registration the condition for the settlement to affect anyone other than the spouses: it shall not prejudice third persons unless registered "in the local civil registry where the marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties." Two registrations, not one — the local civil registry that holds your marriage record, and the Registry of Deeds for each covered property.
Unregistered, your settlement still governs between the two of you. What it will not do is stand up against a bank, a buyer or a creditor who dealt with one of you on the assumption that the default regime applied. We found no Supreme Court decision turning on this clause, so we do not dress it up with case law: this one is statute, plainly worded, and worth the trip to two counters.
What a clean file looks like
- A written disclosure of assets, income and debts from both sides, kept with the file.
- Each party independently advised, so nobody can later say they did not understand it.
- Signed and notarized on a dated instrument, comfortably ahead of the wedding.
- Registered with the local civil registry and with the Registry of Deeds for every covered property.
- Certified copies kept by both spouses, and one with your counsel.
That is the file we build in our standard engagement, and the regime it carries is chosen at the start — see choosing a regime.
Frequently asked questions
Does a Philippine prenup have to be notarized?
Article 77 requires only that the marriage settlement be in writing, signed by the parties, and executed before the celebration of the marriage. It does not mention notarization. We notarize every settlement anyway, because the registration offices work with notarized instruments and because a document whose due execution nobody can plausibly dispute is what ends a property argument early instead of years later.
What happens if we never register the prenup?
Article 77 says marriage settlements shall not prejudice third persons unless they are registered in the local civil registry where the marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties. Between the two of you the agreement still stands. Against a bank, a buyer or a creditor, registration is what makes it count. We found no Supreme Court decision turning on that clause, so we state it as the statute states it and no further.
Can we sign the prenup a few days before the wedding?
Article 77 requires execution before the celebration of the marriage, and in Delgado v. GQ Realty Development Corp. the ante-nuptial agreement was dated June 15, 1987 for a marriage on June 20, 1987. Five days was enough for the paper. It is not enough for the disclosure, the drafting, the review by both sides and the registration work that should surround it, so do not plan for it.
Does each of us need our own lawyer?
Nothing in Article 77 requires it, and we still recommend it. In Delgado the Supreme Court read an ambiguity against the spouse whose own counsel had drafted the agreement, and treated an intention never reduced to writing as no intention at all. A settlement that both parties actually understood, each with someone to explain it to them, is the one least likely to be fought over.