Introduction

In the Philippines, the property relations between spouses are primarily governed by the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended), which took effect on August 3, 1988. This legal framework establishes the rules for how assets and liabilities are managed during marriage, upon dissolution, or in the event of death. For marriages involving a Filipino citizen and a foreign national, these rules intersect with constitutional provisions, particularly those restricting foreign ownership of land and other real property. The Philippine Constitution (1987) prohibits aliens from acquiring private lands, creating unique considerations in mixed marriages to prevent circumvention of these restrictions through marital property regimes.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of conjugal property rules in such marriages, including default regimes, options for prenuptial agreements, implications for property acquisition, administration, dissolution, and inheritance, as well as relevant case law and practical considerations. It emphasizes the Philippine legal context, where family law prioritizes the protection of Filipino interests and national patrimony.

Property Regimes Under the Family Code

The Family Code outlines three main property regimes for spouses:

Absolute Community of Property (ACP): This is the default regime for marriages solemnized after August 3, 1988, in the absence of a marriage settlement (prenuptial agreement). Under ACP (Articles 88-104), all properties owned by the spouses before marriage (except those excluded by law) and acquired during marriage become community property, owned equally by both spouses. Exclusions include property acquired by gratuitous title (e.g., inheritance or donation), personal items, and property for exclusive use.
Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG): This was the default regime for marriages before August 3, 1988 (Articles 105-133). In CPG, properties owned before marriage remain separate, but gains or income from separate properties and properties acquired during marriage through onerous title (e.g., purchase) become conjugal. Upon dissolution, only the net gains are divided equally.
Complete Separation of Property (CSP): Spouses may agree to this regime via a marriage settlement (Article 134-144). All properties remain separately owned, and each spouse manages their own assets independently. This can also be judicially decreed during marriage under certain conditions, such as abuse or abandonment.

Other hybrid regimes are possible if stipulated in a marriage settlement, provided they do not violate law, morals, or public policy (Article 75).

Application to Marriages Between Foreigners and Filipinos

Article 80 of the Family Code states that, in the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, property relations are governed by Philippine laws, regardless of where the marriage was celebrated or the spouses' residence. This applies to mixed marriages, except where both spouses are aliens. However, the rule is subject to exceptions for contracts affecting foreign-situated property.

In practice, mixed marriages raise conflicts due to Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which reserves private lands for Filipino citizens or corporations at least 60% Filipino-owned. Foreigners may own condominium units (up to 40% of a project's total floor area under Republic Act No. 4726) or lease land long-term, but outright ownership of land is prohibited. This creates tension in communal regimes like ACP or CPG, where co-ownership could imply indirect foreign ownership of land.

Default Property Regime in Mixed Marriages

Contrary to common misconception, the Family Code does not automatically impose CSP on mixed marriages. The default remains ACP for post-1988 marriages without a prenuptial agreement. However, judicial interpretations and practical applications often lead to effective separation for real property to comply with constitutional mandates.

Rationale for Caution: If spouses under ACP or CPG acquire land during marriage, the property is presumed communal. But since a foreigner cannot own land, courts may deem the acquisition as solely owned by the Filipino spouse to avoid unconstitutionality. This was affirmed in cases like Muller v. Muller (G.R. No. 149615, August 29, 2006), where the Supreme Court held that a foreign spouse has no vested right in conjugal land, and any claim is void ab initio if it violates the Constitution.
Presumption of Separate Ownership for Land: In Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74833, January 21, 1991), the Court ruled that land purchased during marriage with conjugal funds but titled solely in the Filipino spouse's name is presumed to be the Filipino's separate property, especially if the foreign spouse knew of the restriction. This protects against simulated sales or indirect ownership.

Thus, while the regime is nominally ACP or CPG, land acquisitions are treated as separate property of the Filipino spouse, effectively hybridizing the regime.

Prenuptial Agreements: A Recommended Approach

To avoid ambiguities, many couples in mixed marriages execute a marriage settlement opting for CSP. This must be in writing, signed before marriage, and registered if involving real property (Article 77). It allows each spouse to retain full control over their assets, preventing any claim by the foreigner on Philippine land.

Advantages: CSP ensures compliance with the Constitution, simplifies administration, and protects the Filipino spouse's assets from foreign creditors. It also facilitates estate planning.
Requirements: The agreement must be notarized and, for enforceability against third parties, recorded in the Registry of Deeds. Foreign laws may apply if the marriage is abroad, but Philippine law governs local property.
Post-Marriage Modifications: Property regimes can be changed judicially during marriage for valid causes (e.g., infidelity, Article 135), but not retroactively.

Property Acquisition and Administration

Pre-Marriage Property: Under ACP, it becomes community property unless excluded. In mixed marriages, foreign-owned property abroad remains governed by foreign law (Article 16, Civil Code), but Philippine assets must comply with ownership rules.
During Marriage:
- Movable Property: Generally communal under ACP/CPG, including bank accounts, vehicles, and investments. Foreigners can own these fully.
- Real Property: Land must be acquired solely by the Filipino spouse. Structures on land (e.g., houses) may be co-owned if built with conjugal funds, but the land remains Filipino-owned (Frenzel v. Catito, G.R. No. 143958, July 11, 2003).
- Business Interests: Foreigners are limited to 40% ownership in certain enterprises under the Foreign Investments Act (Republic Act No. 7042, as amended).
- Administration: Both spouses jointly administer community property (Article 96), but acts of ownership require consent. In CSP, each manages independently.
Debts and Liabilities: In ACP/CPG, community property answers for debts incurred for family benefit. Personal debts are charged to separate property first.

Dissolution of Marriage and Property Division

Marriages can end by death, annulment, legal separation, or (for post-2009 cases involving psychological incapacity) declaration of nullity.

Annulment/Nullity: Property regime is liquidated as if no marriage occurred. In ACP/CPG, net assets are divided equally; in CSP, each retains their own.
Legal Separation: Property is separated, but marriage bond remains. Community property is divided, with the guilty spouse potentially forfeiting share (Article 63).
Death: Surviving spouse gets share plus inheritance rights. For mixed marriages, the foreigner cannot inherit land but may receive usufruct (use) rights. Republic Act No. 10572 allows foreign widows/widowers to retain land ownership if acquired before the spouse's death, but this is limited.

In all cases, courts prioritize Filipino interests. In Van Dorn v. Romillo (G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985), the Court held that a foreign spouse cannot claim Philippine property post-divorce if divorced abroad, as Philippine law does not recognize absolute divorce for Filipinos.

Inheritance and Succession

Under the Civil Code (Articles 774-1105), spouses are compulsory heirs. The foreign spouse inherits as a legitimate spouse, but cannot receive land. Instead, land goes to Filipino heirs, with possible compensation from other assets.

Wills: Testate succession allows bequests, but forced heirship reserves portions for compulsory heirs.
Intestate: Foreign spouse gets one-third or one-half of the estate, excluding land.

Cases like Philippine Trust Co. v. Bohanan (G.R. No. L-12105, January 30, 1960) confirm that national law governs succession capacity.

Special Considerations

Marriages Abroad: If celebrated outside the Philippines, validity is governed by lex loci celebrationis (Article 26, Family Code), but property by Philippine law if one is Filipino.
Same-Sex Marriages: Not recognized in the Philippines, so no property regime applies.
Common-Law Relationships: No conjugal rights; property remains separate.
Tax Implications: Community property affects estate and donor's taxes (Tax Code, as amended by TRAIN Law).
Anti-Dummy Law: Prohibits foreigners from using Filipinos as dummies for land ownership (Commonwealth Act No. 108).
Case Law Highlights:
- Matthews v. Taylor (G.R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009): Foreign spouse's interest in conjugal land is null if it violates Constitution.
- Republic v. Orbecido (G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005): Allows Filipinos divorced by foreigners abroad to remarry, affecting property claims.

Practical Advice

Couples should consult a Philippine lawyer for a tailored prenuptial agreement, especially if land is involved. Registration of assets and clear titling are crucial. In disputes, jurisdiction lies with Philippine courts for local property.

In summary, while Philippine law provides flexible regimes, constitutional safeguards ensure that mixed marriages do not undermine national land policies. Opting for CSP minimizes risks, promoting harmony and legal compliance.