Solidary liability for support of family, A100(3) Family Code
Art. 100. The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of absolute community except that:
x x x
(3) In the absence of sufficient community property, the separate property of both spouses shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family. The spouse present shall, upon proper petition in a summary proceeding, be given judicial authority to administer or encumber any specific separate property of the other spouse and use the fruits or proceeds thereof to satisfy the latter’s share. (178a)
1) Even when a husband and wife are no longer living together without going through formal legal separation, their joint ownership of assets under the absolute community of property regime stays intact. However, if their community property is not enough to meet the family’s needs — like food, shelter, or education — then both spouses’ personal or separately owned assets can be used to support the family. In this situation, the spouse who is still around and caring for the family may go to court and ask for quick legal approval (through a summary proceeding) to manage, sell, or use the income from the other spouse’s separate property to cover that spouse’s share of the family’s support. (OpenAI ChatGPT-4 [2025], reviewed by J. Del Puerto. Available at: https://chat.openai.com [Accessed: 5 May 2025])
Example 1: Liza was left with her children when Martin moved out without providing support. Their community assets had already been used up. Liza filed a petition in court and was granted permission to lease out one of Martin’s separately owned apartments to help cover his share in the family’s expenses. (Ibid.)
Example 2: Jorge and Clara had been living apart for over a year. When their shared funds ran dry and Clara failed to send money, Jorge asked the court for authority to sell her idle land (which was her separate property) and use the proceeds to pay for their daughter’s tuition and daily needs. (Ibid.)
Example 3: Emilia was still living with her kids after Danilo moved abroad and stopped communicating. With their community savings depleted, Emilia requested court approval to manage Danilo’s personal investments. The court allowed her to use the earnings from his stocks to contribute to the family’s support, particularly the children’s medical needs. (Ibid.)
