PNoy approves amendment to Family

Code
May 29, 2013 8:19pm
2353

232

3000

Tags: Benigno Aquino III

President Benigno Aquino III has signed an amendment to the Family Code that allows a spouse to
enter into a business transaction without the consent of his or her partner.
Republic Act 10572, signed by Aquino last May 24, states that "either spouse may exercise any
legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without the consent of the other."
In case there is disagreement between the couple, the law directs the court to decide if the objection
is proper, and if the family has already benefited from the transaction.
Under the new law, a debt that was incurred due to the transaction shall be charged to the couple's
conjugal property if both spouses already benefited from it.
This amends Article 73 of Family Code, which previously states that only the consenting spouse
shall shoulder the debt or obligation from the transaction he or she entered into even if the family
has already benefited from it. Andreo Calonzo/KBK, GMA News

Posted on May 24, 2013

H. No. 6307
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Fifteenth Congress
Third Regular Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-third day of July, two thousand twelve.
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10572]
AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE LIABILITY OF THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OR
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP FOR AN OBLIGATION OF A SPOUSE WHO

PRACTICES A PROFESSION AND THE CAPABILITY OF EITHER SPOUSE TO

DISPOSE OF AN EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
OTHER SPOUSE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLES 73 AND 111
OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, ALSO KNOWN AS THE FAMILY CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
SECTION 1. Article 73 of the Family Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
Art. 73. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity
without the consent of the other. The latter may object only on valid, serious, and moral grounds.
In case of disagreement, the court shall decide whether or not:
(1) The objection is proper, and
(2) Benefit has accrued to the family prior to the objection or thereafter. If the benefit accrued
prior to the objection, the resulting obligation shall be enforced against the community property.
If the benefit accrued thereafter, such obligation shall be enforced against the separate property
of the spouse who has not obtained consent.
The foregoing provisions shall not prejudice the rights of creditors who acted in good faith.
SEC. 2. Article 111 of the Family Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
Art. 111. Either spouse may mortgage, encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her
exclusive property.
SEC. 3. Separability Clause. If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional,
the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and
subsisting.
SEC. 4. Repealing Clause. Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of
instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
SEC. 5. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at
least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House

of Representatives

This Act which originated in the House of Representatives was finally passed by the House of
Representatives and the Senate on September 20, 2012 and January 30, 2013, respectively.
http://www.gov.ph/2013/05/24/republic-act-no-10572/

P-Noy signs law amending Family Code

By Delon Porcalla (The Philippine Star) | Updated May 31, 2013 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines - President Aquino has signed into law a bill amending Executive Order 209, the Family
Code of the Philippines, to establish the liability of absolute community or conjugal partnership for the obligation
of a spouse practicing a profession and the capability of either spouse to dispose of exclusive property.
Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said Republic Act 10572 amends Articles 73 and 111 of the
Family Code to designate the courts to determine the basis for any objection between spouses in exercising
any legitimate occupation, business or activity and to discern whether any benefit from this exercise should
accrue against community property or separate property; and allow either spouse to mortgage, encumber,
alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property.
So the spouse does not need the consent of her partner in practicing a legitimate occupation or profession,
she said.
But in cases of disagreement, the court can step in and decide if there is basis to the objection of the spouse,
she said.
Now, if the family benefits from the proceeds of that occupation or profession that is being objected to, then
they can charge the benefit to the community property. If the spouse did not object but benefited first then
objected later, then it should be charged to the separate property of the spouse, she added
http://www.philstar.com/nation/2013/05/31/948212/p-noy-signs-law-amending-family-code

OPINION
The economic reality in many families encourageseven requiresboth the husband and wife to contribute
to the family coffers. Most of the time, we see both father and mother employed, practicing their profession
or engaged in a business so they can provide a comfortable life for their children, mindful of the fact that the
expenses get bigger as the children grow.
There are, however, husbands who are more conservative, and are therefore more restrictive when it comes
to allowing their partners to engage in gainful activities. For these types of husbands, the home is a better
place for women, and their time is better spent keeping the house and rearing the children.

What happens if the husband does not want the wife to find employment, engage in business, or practice
her profession? Does she have a legal recourse? Can she do what she wants? Or is she bound by her
marriage to obey her husband's wishes?
There is hardly any substitute for an agreement between the husband and the wife, based on a mutual
understanding of what both partners want and need to do. However, in cases were such an agreement is
impossible to arrive at, the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended) provides
the answers.
Title III of the Family Code lays down the rights and obligations between husbands and wives. The pertinent
provision is Article 73 thereof, which was recently amended by virtue of Republic Act No. 10572. Under
Article 73, "either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without
the consent of the other." So legally speaking, women are not even required to get the consent of their
partner before they can engage in gainful employment or business, or practice their profession. The only
requirement is that the occupation, business or activity should be legitimate. This means that it should not
be illegal or immoral in nature.
If the husband does not agree that his wife should be working, he may object. However, the same article
said the objection should be based on "valid, serious, and moral grounds." The ground for objection cannot
be flimsy, whimsical, or imagined. In addition, the husband cannot impose his will on the wife and totally
prevent her from working. For example, the husband cannot object to the wife working on the ground that
her co-workers are predominantly male. On the other hand, the objection is valid if the wife is engaged in
illegal recruitment, for instance.
Husbands and wives should also take note that preventing women from legitimately exercising their
profession, engaging in business or seeking employment amounts to economic abuse. As such, women who
are in this restricting situation may file a criminal case and hold their husbands, lovers, or boyfriends liable
under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (Republic Act No. 9262).
But what happens if the husband and the wife disagree? Under Article 73, as amended, the court can step in
to decide if the objection is proper, meaning, whether or not the ground for the objection is valid, serious,
and moral in nature. Supposing the court later decides that the objection is valid, can it impose upon the
wife to stop her activities? There is no decided case on this issue yet, but I would think this is a matter
beyond judicial authority, as it necessarily involves the woman's free choice.
The question of whether or not the object is proper, based on the court's findings, becomes relevant when
obligations arise out of the woman's exercise of profession, or engaging in business or employment, and
there is a need to decide if the obligation should be charged to the separate property of the wife or to the
community property.