Overview

In the Philippines, whether a spouse can (a) claim a share in rental income from inherited property and (b) sue to collect “unremitted” rentals depends mainly on:

Who owns the inherited property (one spouse alone, both spouses, or an undivided estate/co-heir situation);
The spouses’ property regime (Absolute Community of Property, Conjugal Partnership of Gains, or Separation of Property);
Who had authority to lease/collect (as owner, administrator, agent, or apparent authority);
Whether the rentals are being pursued from the tenant or from the spouse/collector who failed to remit; and
The timing—e.g., whether there is an ongoing estate settlement, or whether the marriage is still subsisting.

This article lays out the legal framework and practical remedies.

1) Start with the Property Regime: Who Owns the Rentals?

A. Absolute Community of Property (ACP) — default for marriages without a valid marriage settlement (generally, marriages on/after Aug. 3, 1988, unless stipulated otherwise)

Inherited property (acquired by gratuitous title) is excluded from the community.

Crucially, under ACP, the fruits and income of that inherited property (like rentals) are generally ALSO excluded, unless the donor/testator expressly provides that the property or its fruits will form part of the community.

Practical consequence (ACP):

If the property was inherited by Spouse A alone, then rentals are typically exclusive to Spouse A, not automatically shareable with Spouse B—unless the will/donation says otherwise.

B. Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) — applies when validly chosen, or for certain marriages under older rules

Under CPG, the inherited property itself remains exclusive to the inheriting spouse. But the fruits/income of exclusive property during the marriage (e.g., rental income) are generally conjugal.

Practical consequence (CPG):

If the property was inherited by Spouse A alone, rentals earned during marriage are typically conjugal, meaning Spouse B has a stake in them (more precisely: an interest in the conjugal partnership’s assets and accounting).

C. Separation of Property — by agreement (marriage settlement) or by judicial decree

Each spouse owns, manages, and enjoys their own property and its income, unless they agree otherwise.

Practical consequence (Separation):

If Spouse A inherited the property, Spouse B generally has no claim to rentals merely by marriage.

2) Ownership vs. “Right to Collect”: Who Is Legally Entitled to Receive Rent?

Even if someone is not the owner, they might still be the person who can validly collect rent because they are:

The administrator (for community/conjugal property),
An agent (with authority from the owner/spouses),
A co-owner (entitled to collect but must account), or
A person with apparent authority such that the tenant’s payment in good faith may be valid.

Key rule in practice: payment to the “wrong” person may still discharge the tenant

Philippine civil law recognizes that a debtor (tenant) who pays in good faith to a person in possession of the credit may be protected. That means:

If the tenant reasonably believed the collecting spouse had authority (e.g., they managed the property, issued receipts, held themselves out as lessor/agent), the tenant may be considered as having paid validly.
In that scenario, the owner’s most direct claim is often against the spouse who collected and did not remit, not against the tenant for a second payment.

3) Common Scenarios and Answers

Scenario 1: Property inherited by Spouse A alone; Spouse B collected the rent and kept it.

Can Spouse A demand the rent and sue Spouse B?

Yes. Spouse A can demand accounting and remittance of rentals collected without authority or beyond authority.
The exact “who ultimately owns the rentals” depends on the regime:
- ACP / Separation: rentals are typically Spouse A’s (exclusive), so non-remittance is straightforwardly a civil dispute over Spouse A’s funds.
- CPG: rentals are typically conjugal, so Spouse B still cannot simply appropriate them. They remain subject to conjugal administration and accounting, and misuse can be actionable.

Can Spouse B argue “but I’m the spouse”?

Marriage alone is not a license to appropriate the other spouse’s exclusive property or funds.
Even when rentals are conjugal (CPG), one spouse generally cannot unilaterally treat them as personal money without proper accounting.

Can Spouse A file a criminal case (e.g., estafa)?

Be careful here: the Revised Penal Code has a spousal exemption (Article 332) for certain property crimes (commonly understood to cover theft, swindling/estafa, and malicious mischief) between spouses who are not legally separated, resulting in no criminal liability but civil liability remains.
This often means the realistic route is civil recovery/accounting, not criminal prosecution (fact patterns can vary; consult counsel).

Scenario 2: Property inherited by Spouse A alone, but under CPG; Spouse A says “Spouse B must remit my rentals.”

Under CPG, rentals during marriage are generally conjugal, not purely “Spouse A’s.” But Spouse B still must account if they collected and kept the money.

What can Spouse A sue for, if the marriage is still ongoing?

Spouse A can sue for:
- Accounting (how much was collected, when, from whom, where it went),
- Delivery/remittance to the conjugal partnership or to the proper administrator account,
- Damages if warranted,
- Judicial remedies to protect conjugal assets (e.g., judicial separation of property in serious cases, appointment of an administrator/receiver, injunction—depending on circumstances).

Important nuance: A spouse’s “share” in conjugal assets is often described as inchoate while the marriage subsists. Many disputes become cleaner upon dissolution/liquidation (death, annulment/nullity, legal separation, judicial separation of property), but courts can still grant protective relief during marriage when one spouse is mismanaging or dissipating assets.

Scenario 3: The inherited property is co-owned (e.g., Spouse A inherited with siblings; or both spouses are heirs).

If the property is inherited by multiple heirs, it is usually held in co-ownership until partition.

Rules:

A co-owner may collect rents, but has a duty to account to other co-owners for their proportional shares (after deducting proper expenses).
If the property is still under estate settlement (judicial), the executor/administrator is typically the proper party to collect rents for the estate.

Who sues whom?

If Spouse A is only a co-owner-heir, they may sue:
- The collecting co-owner for accounting, or
- Seek partition, or
- Raise the issue in the estate proceedings (if under judicial settlement).
If Spouse B is not an heir/co-owner, Spouse B’s right to collect depends on authority (agency) or marital property administration rules—not inheritance.

Scenario 4: The tenant hasn’t paid rent; can the spouse sue the tenant?

Yes, but the proper plaintiff matters:

If the leased property is exclusive to one spouse: the owner-spouse is typically the proper plaintiff (or their authorized agent).
If the leased property (or rentals) is part of community/conjugal administration: usually both spouses should be joined, or the suing spouse must show authority/grounds to sue alone (e.g., the other spouse is absent, incapacitated, refuses without just cause, etc.).

Also consider the cause of action:

Collection of sum of money (unpaid rentals), and/or
Unlawful detainer (ejectment for nonpayment) if the goal is to remove the tenant—subject to strict procedural timelines and demand requirements.

4) “Unremitted Rentals”: What Legal Claims Are Typically Used?

A. Demand for Accounting (often step one)

Where one spouse (or a co-owner) collected money that should be turned over, the core remedy is usually accounting.

B. Civil action for Sum of Money / Collection

If amounts are definite (e.g., supported by lease contract, receipts, ledgers), an action to collect a determinate sum can be filed.

C. Action based on Agency

If Spouse B acted as an agent, Spouse A can invoke obligations of an agent to deliver what was received by virtue of the agency and to render an account.

D. Remedies within the Family Code framework (when mismanagement is severe)

Depending on facts, a spouse may seek:

Judicial separation of property (in situations like abandonment, failure to comply with marital duties, or mismanagement/dissipation),
Court authority for one spouse to act alone where the other spouse’s consent is required but is withheld without just cause, and/or
Protective relief to prevent dissipation.

(These are fact-intensive and usually require counsel.)

E. Barangay Conciliation (often mandatory)

Many disputes between individuals residing in the same city/municipality may require Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings before filing in court, unless an exception applies. Spousal disputes over money/property commonly trigger this requirement.

5) Defenses and Complications You Should Expect

1) “I had authority” / “I was the one managing it”

If Spouse B can prove express or implied authority (written SPA, text/email instructions, consistent past practice, issuing official receipts with owner’s knowledge), the dispute may shift from “unauthorized collection” to “failure to remit / improper accounting.”

2) Tenant’s defense: “I already paid”

If the tenant paid in good faith to the collecting spouse believed to have authority, the owner-spouse may have a harder time collecting again from the tenant and may need to pursue the collector-spouse directly.

3) Lease validity issues (authority to lease)

Longer-term leases or leases that effectively encumber property can raise consent/authority problems under marital property rules (especially when the property is community/conjugal). This can affect who can enforce the lease and collect.

4) Estate not settled

If the property is still effectively part of an unsettled estate, rent may be viewed as belonging to the estate, with collection properly coursed through an administrator/executor (judicial settlement) or through heirs’ arrangements (extrajudicial, if valid and completed).

6) Prescription (Deadlines) and the “Between Spouses” Issue

Prescription depends on the legal basis:

Written lease contracts: actions based on written contracts generally have longer prescriptive periods than oral arrangements.
Oral leases: shorter prescriptive periods may apply.

A major wrinkle: under Philippine civil law, prescription generally does not run between husband and wife (even if there is separation of property), which can affect claims between spouses—but not necessarily claims against third parties like tenants.

Because prescription is technical and highly fact-dependent, treat this as an area to verify with counsel using the exact dates and documents.

7) Practical Step-by-Step: What People Typically Do

Identify the regime: ACP, CPG, or Separation (check marriage settlement, marriage date, any court decrees).
Confirm ownership status of the inherited property:
- Sole inheritance? Co-heir? Still in estate?
Gather proof:
- Title/tax declaration, will/extra-judicial settlement, lease contracts, receipts, bank deposits, messages showing authority, demand letters.
Make a written demand:
- To the tenant (if unpaid) and/or to the collecting spouse (for accounting/remittance).
Barangay conciliation (if required).
Choose the right case:
- Accounting + sum of money vs. family-code protective remedies vs. estate proceeding remedies vs. ejectment (if removing tenant).

8) Clear Answers to the Title Question

Can a spouse collect rental income from inherited property?

Owner-spouse: Yes.
Non-owner spouse: Only if:
- The rentals are part of conjugal/community administration and they are acting within authority; or
- They are an authorized agent; or
- They are a co-owner/heir (in their own right).

Can a spouse sue for “unremitted” rentals?

Yes, commonly through accounting and collection actions.
Who sues depends on the regime and ownership:
- Owner-spouse can sue the collecting spouse for accounting/remittance.
- For tenant collection, the proper plaintiff is generally the owner and/or the spouses as administrators if community/conjugal property is involved.
If the matter involves conjugal/community assets, courts often expect suits to reflect the correct administration rules (sometimes requiring both spouses to be joined, unless grounds exist to proceed with one).

9) Practical Takeaways

Inherited property is usually exclusive, but rental income treatment differs dramatically between ACP and CPG.
Even if rentals are conjugal (CPG), one spouse can’t just keep them—there must be accounting and proper administration.
A tenant who paid the “collecting spouse” in good faith may be protected; recovery may need to be directed against the spouse who kept the money.
Criminal cases are often complicated by the spousal exemption; civil remedies are typically the main path.
Estate/co-ownership situations change everything: rent may belong to the estate or be subject to co-owner accounting.

Suggested Next Move (if you’re turning this into an actual case theory)

Frame the issue using a simple fork:

Is the inherited property solely adjudicated to one spouse already?

If yes → apply ACP/CPG/Separation rules to rentals; pursue accounting/remittance and/or tenant collection.

Is it still part of an estate or co-ownership?

If yes → determine if the proper remedy lies in estate proceedings, co-owner accounting/partition, or both.

This is a general legal discussion for Philippine context and not legal advice. For a real dispute, the outcome often turns on documents (the will/settlement, the lease, proof of authority, and the spouses’ property regime) and on procedural choices (barangay conciliation, proper parties, and the correct court action).