Theft of Conjugal Property by a Spouse in Philippine Law

This article is written for general information only and is not a substitute for personalized legal advice. Statutes cited are current as of 7 July 2025.

1. Why the Topic Matters

In many Filipino households the family residence, vehicles, businesses, bank deposits, and even retirement benefits are owned in common by the spouses. When one spouse secretly sells, mortgages, pawns, withdraws, or otherwise appropriates those assets, the aggrieved spouse often asks :

“Hindi ba ito pagnanakaw (theft)?”

The legal answer is more nuanced than a simple “yes” or “no,” because Philippine criminal, civil, and family statutes overlap—and sometimes collide—on this point.

2. Governing Property Regimes

Property Regime	Law	Scope
Absolute Community of Property (ACP)	Family Code (FC) Art. 75–92	Default regime for marriages on/after 3 Aug 1988 if no pre-nup. Practically all property owned by either spouse before and during the marriage (except exclusions in Art. 92) becomes community property.
Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG)	Civil Code Art. 153–182 (still applies to marriages before 3 Aug 1988 without a pre-nup)	Each spouse keeps his/her exclusive properties; fruits, income and gains acquired during marriage belong to the partnership.
Separation of Property	FC Art. 134–148 (by pre-nup or by court decree)	Each spouse owns, manages, and disposes of his/her own property.
Universal/Other Regimes	Art. 81, 147, 148, etc.	Cover mixed marriages, unions without license, property relations of live-in partners.

Key idea: under ACP and CPG the spouses are co-owners of the community/conjugal mass. In a co-ownership every share is undivided until liquidation. This co-ownership concept underlies the rules on theft.

3. Administration and Disposition

Article	Core Rule	Practical Effect
FC Art. 96 (ACP)	Either spouse may jointly manage community property but acts of disposition or encumbrance require written consent of the other. If consent is absent or in dispute → court may authorize or nullify the act.
FC Art. 124 (CPG)	Parallel rule for conjugal partnership property.
FC Art. 98 / CC Art. 178	Either spouse may appear in court for community/conjugal interest.
FC Art. 115–130	Grounds and effects of dissolution (judicial separation of property, abandonment, VAWC, etc.).

If a spouse secretly sells, mortgages, or withdraws common property without the other’s written consent, the act is voidable (ACP) or void (some CPG acts) but it does not automatically amount to theft.

4. The Crime of Theft under the Revised Penal Code (RPC)

Art. 308 RPC – “Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, without force upon things and without violence or intimidation of any person, shall take personal property belonging to another without the latter’s consent.”

Main elements:

Taking of personal property (movables, money, documents of credit).
Property belongs to another.
Taking is without consent.
Intent to gain (animus lucrandi).
No violence, intimidation, or force upon things.

Because conjugal or community property belongs to both spouses, element #2 (“belongs to another”) is immediately in doubt.

5. Article 332 RPC – The “Family Exemption”

Art. 332 RPC – “No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of theft, swindling (estafa), or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons: (1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; … Provided, That there is no participation of strangers.”

Essential consequences

A spouse cannot be criminally prosecuted for theft or estafa involving:
- Community/Conjugal property, or
- Exclusive property of the other spouse, so long as no stranger participated.
Only civil actions (restitution, damages) are available.

Rationale: The State treats the marital union as a single economic unit; internal misappropriations are deemed family matters, not crimes.

6. Important Exceptions & Nuances

Scenario	Is Criminal Theft Possible?	Why
Stranger Participates (e.g., spouse conspires with lover/broker)	YES (both spouse and stranger may be indicted)	Art. 332’s protection vanishes once an outsider shares in the taking.
Property of a Third Person (e.g., spouse takes mother-in-law’s jewelry)	YES	Not conjugal; owner is not within Art. 332’s protected circle.
*Paraphernal/Exclusive property taken before* marriage**	NO criminal liability if no stranger	Still covered by Art. 332 because “spouses” included.
Economic Abuse under R.A. 9262 (Violence Against Women & Children)	YES, but under a different crime	VAWC punishes “withdrawal of financial support or controlling conjugal money or property.” Intent to gain is irrelevant.
Bank withdrawals exceeding authority (forged signature)	Usually NO theft, but may be forgery, falsification, or estafa vis-à-vis bank.
Abuse of Trust by Administrator-Spouse	No theft, but possible estafa under Art. 315 §1(b) if stranger involved or property isn’t conjugal.

7. Qualified Theft vs. Estafa

If criminal liability is possible (because a stranger joined, or the property is outside conjugal mass):

Crime	Requisites	Relevance
Qualified Theft (Art. 310 RPC)	Theft committed by domestic servant, employee, or by abuse of confidence. Penalty is two degrees higher.	If the spouse + outsider are domestic helpers of the offended spouse (rare).
Estafa (Art. 315 §1-b RPC)	Conversion or misappropriation of money, goods, or other personal property received in trust, to the prejudice of another.	Sometimes charged when spouse is an attorney-in-fact or holds exclusive property in trust.

RA 10951 (2017) updated monetary values: theft < ₱5,000 is now punished only by arresto menor; thresholds for qualified theft also rose.

8. Civil & Family‐Law Remedies

Action for Annulment of Deed / Reconveyance
- Ask RTC (family court) to declare the unauthorized sale/mortgage void and to return the property.
Judicial Separation of Property (FC Art. 134–135)
- Ground: “fraud or reckless dissipation of community/ conjugal property.”
- After decree, each spouse owns his/her share separately.
Forfeiture in Favor of Aggrieved Spouse & Children (FC Art. 96 ¶3 / Art. 124 ¶3)
- Court may award the offending spouse’s share to the other spouse and common children as indemnity.
Damages under Civil Code Art. 19-21 (abuse of rights, acts contra bonos mores).
Protection Orders under RA 9262 (economic abuse).
Accounting and Liquidation upon dissolution of property regime (FC Art. 102, 129, 147, 148).

9. Provisional Remedies

Notice of Lis Pendens – Annotate the title to warn buyers.
Preliminary Injunction – Stop ongoing foreclosure or transfer.
Attachment/Garnishment – Rare; only if independent civil action and debtor‐creditor relations exist.

10. Selected Jurisprudence

(Cases prior to 1988 apply by analogy because the principle behind Art. 332 has never been amended.)

Case	G.R. No.	Key Holding
People v. Lopez (1922)	L-18424	Spouse who took wife’s jewelry not criminally liable for theft; Art. 332 controls.
People v. Malabago (1974)	L-28886	Where husband and a stranger conspired to take wife’s paraphernal property, both indictable; Art. 332 inapplicable because of stranger participation.
People v. Guzman (CA, 1995)	CA-GR CR 12987	Wife convicted of theft of mother-in-law’s gold; relationship by affinity collateral line not covered by Art. 332.
Garcia v. Drilon (G.R. 179267, 25 June 2013)	---	Clarified that economic violence (e.g., blocking access to conjugal funds) is punishable under RA 9262, independent of Art. 332.
Tijing v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 125901, 15 Mar 1999)	---	One co-owner’s appropriation of entire co-owned property may be civilly liable but not estafa absent fiduciary obligation. Principle applies to conjugal co-ownership.

11. Interaction with Tax & Succession Rules

Estate Tax: If a spouse dies before liquidation, half of the community property is excluded from the gross estate; misappropriation before death may affect estate accounting.
BIR Regulations require both spouses’ signatures on returns involving sale of common realty; fraudulent sale may trigger compromise penalties but not criminal theft.
Intestate shares of children may be reduced if the surviving spouse dissipated property; heirs can sue for collation and reduction.

12. Practical Checklist for the Aggrieved Spouse

Secure Documents – Obtain titles, bank statements, deeds, CCTV if any.
Send Written Demand – Required in some civil actions and under Art. 332 (for reimbursement).
Choose the Right Case:
- VAWC complaint (economic abuse) → Barangay or Prosecutor’s Office.
- Civil action for annulment of deed / reconveyance → Family/Regional Trial Court.
- Criminal theft/estafa → only if stranger participated or property is not conjugal.
File Notice of Lis Pendens if real property is involved.
Ask for Protection Orders and freeze injunctions as needed.
Consider Mediation or Liquidation – Some courts refer family property disputes to mediation early.

13. Compliance & Risk Tips for the “Taking” Spouse

Always Get Written Consent for any sale, mortgage, or large withdrawal from community property.
Keep Receipts & Proof of Benefit – Even with consent, you must later account during liquidation.
Avoid Mixing Separate & Community Funds unless documented; otherwise you risk forfeiture.
If Financial Separation Is Inevitable, petition for judicial separation of property instead of taking matters into your own hands.
Remember RA 9262 – Economic abuse carries imprisonment of 6 years & 1 day to 12 years plus protection orders and damages.

14. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Question	Short Answer
Can I sue my spouse for qualified theft if he pawned our wedding rings?	No, rings are conjugal; Art. 332 bars prosecution (unless a stranger helped). File a civil or VAWC case instead.
My wife withdrew ₱1 M from our joint account and disappeared. Theft?	No criminal theft; money is conjugal. You may seek civil accounting, forfeiture, or RA 9262 remedies.
Husband forged my signature and borrowed ₱5 M secured by land title. What now?	The mortgage is void for lack of consent; you may sue for annulment, damages, and request cancellation of the lien. Criminal estafa/falsification may prosper because the bank is a third party (stranger).
We have a pre-nup absolute separation of property; spouse took my laptop. Theft?	Yes, because the property is exclusively yours and Art. 332 still bars prosecution unless a stranger joined. Otherwise, only civil liability.
If I file RA 9262, can I still demand restitution?	Yes. VAWC allows civil damages and restitution in the same proceeding.

15. Key Take-Aways

Article 332 RPC generally shields a spouse from criminal liability for theft, estafa, or malicious mischief against conjugal or exclusive property when no outsider is involved.
Civil and family-law remedies remain fully available—annulment of unauthorized dispositions, forfeiture of share, judicial separation of property, damages, and accounting.
Stranger participation, VAWC economic abuse, or property belonging to third parties removes the shield and revives criminal liability.
Written spousal consent is indispensable for validity of dispositions; absence of consent makes the act void/voidable even if not criminal.
Documentation and prompt legal action are crucial to preserve or recover assets.

Prepared by: [Your Name], Philippine lawyer and lecturer in Family Law & Criminal Law