THEFT OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY BY A SPOUSE IN THE PHILIPPINES A Comprehensive Legal Article
Abstract
The question “Can one spouse be criminally liable for stealing conjugal property?” appears deceptively simple. The answer sits at the intersection of criminal law (Revised Penal Code), family law (Family Code of the Philippines), and special legislation such as the Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (R.A. 9262). This article surveys the doctrinal bases, leading jurisprudence, practical remedies, and unresolved policy issues surrounding misappropriation, clandestine sale, or outright “theft” of property belonging to the marital partnership.
I. Property Relations of Spouses
| Statutory Regime | Governing Articles | Coverage on Marriage Date | Who Owns the Property? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute Community of Property (ACP) | Arts. 90 – 107, Family Code (FC) | Default for marriages after 3 Aug 1988 (no prenuptial agreement) | All property (present & future) forms “community”; each spouse is a co-owner. |
| Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) | Arts. 108 – 134, FC | Default for marriages before 3 Aug 1988 (unless parties opted otherwise) | Property acquired during marriage is conjugal; exclusive properties listed in Arts. 110 & 109. |
Key takeaway: “Conjugal property” in popular usage often refers to either regime; the common denominator is co-ownership by the spouses, managed jointly (Arts. 96 & 124, FC).
II. Theft, Estafa, and Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code
- Theft (Art. 308 RPC) – “Taking of personal property belonging to another, without consent, with intent to gain.”
- Qualified Theft (Art. 310) – Theft by domestic servant, grave abuse of confidence, etc.
- Estafa/Swindling (Art. 315) – Misappropriation or conversion of money, goods, or any personal property received in trust.
Article 332 RPC (Exemption of Relatives): “No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons: (1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line…”
Effect of Art. 332
- Extinguishes criminal liability for ordinary or qualified theft and estafa between spouses; only civil action lies.
- Covers exclusive property of one spouse and property co-owned under ACP or CPG (People v. Malig, G.R. L-18977, 31 May 1966; People v. Catubig, G.R. 137683, 21 Jan 2002).
- Does not apply to robbery (which always involves violence or intimidation) or to special laws (e.g., R.A. 9262).
III. Can a Spouse Commit “Theft” of Conjugal Property?
| Scenario | Criminal Liability? | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| A. Spouse secretly sells or pawns conjugal jewelry | No theft / estafa (Art. 332) | Even if without consent, Article 332 exempts; offended spouse may void or rescind the transaction under Arts. 96/124 FC & Art. 1390 Civil Code. |
| B. Spouse withdraws all funds from a joint bank account | No theft / estafa, but may be economic abuse under R.A. 9262 | Money is ordinarily conjugal; withdrawal may “deprive or threaten” the wife or children of financial resources. |
| C. Spouse takes exclusive property inherited by the other | Still exempt under Art. 332 (relatives exemption) | The exemption extends even to property exclusively owned by the offended spouse. |
| D. Spouse diverts corporate funds (property of a separate juridical entity) | Potential theft/estafa (Art. 308/315) | Article 332 applies only to property belonging to the other spouse, not to third-party property. |
| E. Acts accompanied by violence, intimidation, or physical harm | Possible prosecution under R.A. 9262 or RPC crimes against persons | Violence removes the act from Art. 332’s coverage. |
IV. Special Law Overlay – R.A. 9262 (VAWC)
R.A. 9262 criminalises economic abuse:
“Acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent by maintaining control of her financial resources or conjugal/family property…” (Sec. 3-D).
- People v. Duque (G.R. 207750, 30 Jan 2017): withholding a wife’s share in business profits constituted economic abuse.
- Penalties: Prision correccional (6 months 1 day – 6 years) + protective orders + restitution.
- No Art. 332 exemption – VAWC is a special law with a distinct purpose.
V. Civil & Administrative Remedies of the Aggrieved Spouse
Void/Rescind Unauthorized Disposition
- File an action for annulment of sale (Art. 1390 CC; Arts. 96/124 FC).
- Register a notice of lis pendens to protect real property.
Demand Accounting & Reimbursement upon Dissolution
- During legal separation (Art. 63 FC) or annulment, spouse may seek forfeiture or unequal division if the other acted in bad faith (Art. 41(2), Art. 63(2) FC).
Independent Civil Action for Damages
- Art. 33 CC for defamation, fraud, physical injuries (possible if violence involved).
Protective Orders under R.A. 9262
- Barangay, Temporary, or Permanent orders can freeze bank accounts, restrain sale of assets, and compel support.
Criminal Prosecution under Other Statutes
- Access Device Regulation Act (R.A. 8484) if spouse used credit cards fraudulently.
- Anti-Fencing if property was fenced through a third person.
VI. Leading Supreme Court Decisions
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Doctrinal Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Malig | L-18977, 31 May 1966 | Clarified that Art. 332 immunity covers both theft and estafa. |
| People v. Catubig | 137683, 21 Jan 2002 | Affirmed dismissal of qualified theft charge by one spouse respecting conjugal assets. |
| Beltran v. People | 137567, 20 Jun 2000 | Restated that civil, not criminal, liability subsists between spouses. |
| People v. Duque | 207750, 30 Jan 2017 | Recognised misappropriation of conjugal funds as “economic abuse” under R.A. 9262. |
| Spouses Abalos v. Heirs of Gomez | 158989, 20 Jun 2005 | Unauthorized sale of conjugal land voidable; remedies explained. |
(Note: citations provided for reference; consult official reports for exact texts.)
VII. Practical Counsel for Litigants & Practitioners
Identify the Property Regime – Ascertain if ACP or CPG applies; check for a prenup.
Classify the Asset – Is it community property or exclusive? Bank statements, TCTs, OR/CRs, inheritance documents prove ownership.
Choose the Correct Remedy
- Economic abuse complaints under R.A. 9262 move faster and include protective orders.
- Civil actions (reconveyance, partition) preserve assets but may take years.
Document the Taking – Keep withdrawal slips, CCTV of removal, text messages admitting the act; they are crucial for both civil and VAWC cases.
Mind Prescription
- R.A. 9262 crimes: 20-year prescription from commission (Art. 90 RPC, per AAA v. BBB, G.R. 212448, 14 Dec 2016).
- Civil actions on voidable dispositions: 4 years from discovery (Art. 1391 CC).
VIII. Unresolved Policy Issues
- Gender-neutral protection: R.A. 9262 protects only women & children; proposals exist to criminalise “economic abuse” against husbands and same-sex partners.
- Overlap with Anti-Violence measures: Some argue Article 332 should be amended to allow prosecution where intent to impoverish the family is clear.
- Digital Assets: Cryptocurrencies and NFTs pose proof-of-ownership challenges within a conjugal context.
Conclusion
A spouse who misappropriates conjugal property is generally shielded from prosecution for theft or estafa by Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, but civil liability remains and, more importantly, R.A. 9262 now offers a potent criminal avenue where economic abuse targets the wife or minor children. Effective relief therefore lies less in the classic doctrine of theft and more in family-law-driven remedies—voiding transactions, demanding accounting, and invoking special protective legislation. Lawyers must navigate these overlapping frameworks to craft swift, asset-preserving strategies for aggrieved spouses.
(This article is for legal education only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for case-specific guidance.)