Family Domicile, A69 Family Code
1. Family Domicile
Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. x x x
1) Article 69 of the Family Code… took away the exclusive right of the husband to fix the family domicile [under the Civil Code] and gave it jointly to the husband and the wife. (Concurring Opinion by Puno, J. in Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 119976, 18 September 1995)
1) A major accomplishment of women in their quest for equality with men and the elimination of discriminatory provisions of law was the deletion in the Family Code of almost all of the unreasonable strictures on wives and the grant to them of personal rights equal to that of their husbands. Specifically, the husband and wife are now given the right jointly to fix the family domicile; concomitant to the spouses’ being jointly responsible for the support of the family is the right and duty of both spouses to manage the household; the administration and the enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly; the father and mother shall now jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child and several others. (Separate Opinion by Romero, J. in Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 119976, 18 September 1995)
2) [U]nder Article 69 of the Family Code, the fixing of the family domicile is no longer the sole prerogative of the husband, but is now a joint decision of the spouses, and in case of disagreement the court shall decide. The said article uses the term “family domicile,” and not family residence, as “the spouses may have multiple residences, and the wife may elect to remain in one of such residences, which may destroy the duty of the spouses to live together and its corresponding benefits” (ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, [1988], 102, cited in Dissenting Opinion by Davide, Jr., J., in Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, En Banc [1995]).
a. Policy
Although the Family Code does not grant the right to compel spouses to cohabit with each other, it maintains that spouses are duty bound to “live together” and to “fix the family domicile.” This is consistent with the policy of promoting solidarity within the family. (Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, En Banc, G.R. No. 217910, 3 September 2019, Per Leonen, J.)
Arroyo v. Vasquez de Arroyo, En Banc, G.R. No. L-17014, 11 August 1921, Per Street, J.:
• Upon examination of the authorities we are convinced that it is not within the province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. Of course where the property rights of one of the pair are invaled, an action for restitution of such rights can be maintained. But we are disinclined to sanction the doctrine that an order, enforcible by process of contempt, may be entered to compel the restitution of the purely personal rights of consortium. At best such an order can be effective for no other purpose than to compel the spouses to live under the same roof; and the experience of these countries where the court of justice have assumed to compel the cohabitation of married people shows that the policy of the practice is extremely questionable.
• We are therefore unable to hold that Mariano B. Arroyo in this case is entitled to the unconditional and absolute order for the return of the wife to the marital domicile, which is sought in the petitory part of the complaint; though he is, without doubt, entitled to a judicial declaration that his wife has presented herself without sufficient cause and that it is her duty to return.
b. Exempt
Art. 69. x x x
The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (110a)
1) This provision means that a court has the authority to allow one spouse to live separately from the other, particularly in cases where the other spouse resides overseas or when there are strong, justified reasons for not living together. However, the court will not grant this exemption if doing so would undermine the unity or well-being of the family. The overall priority remains the preservation of family solidarity unless the circumstances clearly demand an exception. (OpenAI ChatGPT-4 [2025], reviewed by J. Del Puerto. Available at: https://chat.openai.com [Accessed: 19 April 2025])
