conjugal visits in the philippines

• DATA VISUALIZATION
• DATA STUDIO

The Dark Origins of Conjugal Visits

Priceonomics.

“You gotta understand that back in them days [n-words] were pretty simple creatures. Give ‘em pork, some greens, some cornbread, and some poontang every now and then and they would work for you.” 

-Mississippi prison guard, as told to Dr. Columbus Hopper in the 1960s

In 1960, Mildred Carter arrived at Parchman Penitentiary in Mississippi to visit her husband George Carter, a forty-two-year-old convict serving ten years for assault and battery. After driving up the long road to the prison and being searched by guards, she greeted her husband, and the couple walked to a small, rundown cabin in the prison yard. 

The guards gave the couple privacy, so we don’t know what happened in the cabin. The couple may have held hands. George may have asked Mildred about their two daughters. They likely had sex. It was, after all, a conjugal visit. 

Conjugal visits loom large in pop culture. They are the subject of prison-related jokes: In the sitcom Arrested Development , one episode builds to a scene where a character is pushed against a conjugal trailer and sees his incarcerated father having sex with his mother. They are also the subject of fantasies: Conjugal visits like the Carters are a popular setting for porn scenes. 

Despite conjugal visits’ sultry reputation, however, reformers believe that more prisons should allow conjugal visits. They argue that conjugal visits are a smart policy that maintain inmates’ relationship with family and friends who will help the convicts stay out of prison and find a job when they are released. They prefer the term “family visits” and policies that give prisoners private time with their in-laws, children, and grandparents as well as their spouses. 

When the Carters enjoyed a conjugal visit in 1960, Parchman Penitentiary was the sole prison in the United States that allowed them. Its history with conjugal visits began just after its founding in 1904.

The origin story of conjugal visits in America, however, is a chapter of American racism. In 1904, Parchman Penitentiary was a 19th century plantation recreated, with its black, convict labor force working in the prison’s cotton fields like slaves. Conjugal visits were a paternalistic, ad-hoc reward system. If black convicts worked hard, they got to have sex on Sunday. 

Conjugal visits are a good policy, and they got their start in America for the worst possible reasons. 

Working at Parchman Farms

Thirty years before Mildred Carter drove the long road to Parchman Penitentiary to visit her husband, hundreds of African-American women made the same trip. Some may have been visiting their husbands; the majority were prostitutes. They arrived every Sunday —the lone day when Parchman prisoners did not work the fields—on “a flatbed truck driven by a pimp as lordly as any who ride city streets in pink Cadillacs.” 

Almost since Parchman’s founding in 1904, the guards had organized the arrival of prostitutes who had sex with inmates in the rows of Parchman’s cotton fields. The guards’ actions were not prison policy, but administrators tolerated the practice for decades. 

This is the first documented case of conjugal visits in America, which the guards organized to increase productivity and exercise control over Parchman’s black, convict workforce. “You gotta understand that back in them days [n-words] were pretty simple creatures,” a prison sergeant told academic Columbus Hopper in the 1960s. “Give ‘em pork, some greens, some cornbread, and some poontang every now and then and they would work for you.” 

It’s hard to imagine guards driving prostitutes into a prison for decades, but it occurred at Parchman because the penitentiary operated like a slavery-era plantation. 

Parchman prisoners at work in 1911

After the Civil War, state governments in the south had responsibility for arresting, trying, and incarcerating black criminals for the first time. Most white southerners did not want African-Americans to be free, but they also did not want to pay to lock them up. Once federal control over southern states lessened at the end of Reconstruction, wealthy businessmen suggested a solution: convict labor. 

As historian David M. Oshinsky chronicles in Worse Than Slavery , a lucrative and evil public-private partnership quickly developed in Mississippi. The judiciary purged juries of African-Americans, and legislators passed laws that obligated men who could not pay court fines to work in chain gangs. When there was unmet demand for slaves, as farmers often called the chain gang workers, arrests of black men increased. For crimes like stealing a pig, gambling, or being a tramp, the state sent them to work in the fields. 

Initially, the state leased out black, convict labor to Mississippi’s farmers and construction crews. “The exclusive right to lease state convicts,” Oshinsky writes, “quickly became Mississippi’s most prized political contract.” Anger mounted among white men falling into poverty, who looked enviously at wealthy Mississippians raking in profits from convict labor. They could not tolerate having to sharecrop like black families. After this outburst of racism and populism, Mississippi politicians decided that black convicts would work for the state. Black convict labor built Parchman Penitentiary, and in 1904, thousands of them populated it. Ninety percent of the prisoners were black. 

The new prison looked nothing like a prison and everything like a plantation. Parchman had no walls, towers, or checkpoints—only a barbed wire fence and wooden barracks for the convicts. The convicts worked 20,000 acres of fertile farmland six days a week. The guards and administrators lived on the grounds, and perks included inmates working as servants. The superintendent was a professional farmer who had no background in penal work. A newspaper at the time, according to Oshinsky, wrote that “His annual report to the legislature is not of salvaged lives. It is a profit and loss statement, with the accent on the profit.” Parchman Penitentiary is still better known in Mississippi as Parchman Farms. 

Convicts’ lives were shaped by this imperative to increase cotton production. 

Punishments were not standard. When the white guards whipped a convict for shirking work, or for no reason at all, the number and intensity of lashes depended on the guard’s mood and malice. Convicts often appealed to politicians for pardons, but they were rarely granted. Being unable to work was a surer path to a pardon, which led inmates to chop off an arm or cut their achilles tendon. Convicts could also win their freedom by becoming a “trusty,” a convict who helped control the other laborers in exchange for privileges like better food. The prison staff armed the trusties and gave a full pardon to any trusty who shot an escaping convict. 

The superintendent’s house at Parchman

The trusties were part of a system of “paternalistic rewards” used to increase the productivity of Parchman’s workforce. Though for despicable reasons, this allowed Parchman prisoners to enjoy privileges that most inmates at actual prisons would never enjoy. The guards brought prostitutes to Parchman for convicts who worked hard in the fields, and eventually allowed wives to visit for the same reason. When convicts gambled, drank moonshine, or got high at night, guards looked the other way or profited from it. During World War II, the superintendent of Parchman even began allowing well behaved (i.e. hardworking) inmates to go home for the Christmas holidays. 

Over time, the conjugal visits policy became more formal. By the 1950s, prostitutes no longer came to Parchman. The program was officially sanctioned, inmates met their wives and girlfriends in cabins they built, and the prison provided toys and focused on family. The tradition of inmates going home for the holidays also became an official furlough system. Paternalistic rewards had inspired humane practices. 

By 1960, Parchman seemed to have a model, family-friendly visitation policy.

The Rise and Fall of Conjugal Visits in America

When Cook Knight visited Parchman Penitentiary in 1960 for Cosmopolitan Magazine and profiled George and Mildred Carter, the journalist wrote that “Parchman Penitentiary—with children and toys in its dining halls, inmates and their wives together every Sunday, and gates that open each winter to let prisoners go home for ‘vacations’—may well be the prison of the future.” 

For a time, Cook was right. In the 1970s, new prisons were built with small rooms or cabins for family visits. Federal prisons have never allowed private visits, but as recently as 1995,  17 states condoned conjugal visits, often at the discretion of prison wardens. 

The trend was toward America’s visitation policies resembling those found in much of the world. Most of Latin America offers conjugal visits. The Philippines historically has had prison colonies where convicts could live and work with their families. In Nordic “open” prisons , non-serious offenders shop, work, or study in town each day and can leave regularly to visit their families. Even conservative countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran allow spouses conjugal visits.

American prison reformers embraced conjugal visits for a simple reason: former criminals will be much more likely to stay out of prison if they have close friends and family. As Parchman Superintendent Bill Harpole explained in 1960, “In Mississippi, where a prison conviction is automatic grounds for divorce, families of convicts would fall apart if wives were not permitted the Sunday visit.”

The same logic applies today. In the United States, the recidivism rate is over 50% . In other words, the majority of inmates return to prison after their release. To keep former criminals out of jail, nonprofits and governments have launched programs ranging from prison reading and writing classes to re-entry programs that provide former convicts with job training. They also encourage prison visits.

Allowing prisoners to receive visitors is not just a nice privilege; it reduces crime rates. 

“Visits from family and friends offer a means of establishing, maintaining, or enhancing social support networks,” write Grant Duwe and Valerie Clark of the Department of Corrections. When people leave prison, this can help them “from assuming a criminal identity” and find housing, jobs, and financial support. According to retired warden Arthur Leonardo, having “someone who loves you and will help you, and in the case of children, people who depend on you” is much more likely to keep former criminals out of prison than judges and the police.

But prison sentences stress relationships, and prison visits are not exactly therapeutic environments. Imagine trying to decide whether to stick it out in a relationship or suggesting a parent move into a retirement home—all while guards listen closely and police how long your hugs last. Referring to a television show where a wife talks to her imprisoned husband through a glass wall, George Carter told Cosmopolitan , “It would just about kill me to see my wife like that.” 

Picture via Rennett Stowe

Prisoners who receive conjugal visitors clearly enjoy the sexual aspect. “Having that physical connection with your wife is heaven,” one prisoner told The Marshall Project. When researchers and administrators ask prisoners about conjugal visits, however, the convicts overwhelmingly say the most valuable aspect is intimacy. “Many problems were solved during the privacy and closeness of these visits that would have resulted in violent arguments and hard feelings,” one felon told a researcher who visited Parchman in the 1960s, “were these visits not allowed.” When a gay inmate in California won the right to conjugal visits with his partner, he told the press, “I got to spend 2 1/2 days one-on-one with my partner, my best friend, my confidant, my life partner. It wasn’t about the sex.”

This is why prisons prefer the term family visits to conjugal visits, and why the most permissive policies allow prisoners to spend a weekend in a small house on prison grounds with their children, in-laws, and grandparents as well as their spouse. Conjugal visits involve more family meetings than sex. Some prisons provide condoms, but they also stock board games. 

Advocates suspect conjugal visits are very worthwhile. Data is scarce, but a study of a 1980 family visitation program in New York found that released prisoners who had conjugal visits returned to prison 67% less often . This may not be cause and effect, but it demonstrates the power of family ties and the promise of promoting them. 

Despite their crime fighting, cost-saving potential, conjugal visits never fully took off in America. Administrators understandably restricted them to inmates with records of good behavior and did not allow them in maximum security prisons. Less understandably, they often only allowed family visits to first-time offenders who were so close to finishing their sentences that—as one critic pointed out about Parchman’s program—the inmates should probably have been out on probation or parole. 

While 17 states had programs in 1995, today only three states—California, New York, and Washington—have meaningful programs. Four more states allow children or grandchildren overnight visits, but not spouses. New York has one of the most liberal visitation policies. Yet in 2013, New York only arranged a total of 8,000 visits between all its participating inmates. 

When politicians and administrators oppose conjugal visits, they warn of families smuggling in contraband. (This does happen, although wardens who oversee conjugal visitation programs say it is manageable.) The expense of hosting prisoners’ families also leads to opposition, since any cost savings are long-term. 

The decline of conjugal visits, however, is most motivated by public opinion and politics. Retired prison warden Arthur Leonardo has described the revulsion Americans feel toward prisoners. “There’s this feeling that we shouldn’t be doing anything for them,” he told The Marshall Project . Voters “get upset when they find out inmates get health care! Health care is a curse word!” 

The same dislike Americans feel toward anything positive in inmates’ lives galvanized Richard Bennett, a state representative in Mississippi—which ended its conjugal visit program last year despite pioneering the practice—to push for a permanent ban. “You are in prison for a reason,” Bennett told the New York Times . “You are in there to pay your debt, and conjugal visits should not be part of the deal.”

In 2010, when the governor of New York earmarked $800,000 for the construction of two conjugal trailers at Five Points Correctional Facility, he faced similar opposition. “It is an outrage that Governor Paterson and the New York City Democrat legislators are moving forward with plans to… reward its most hardened criminals — criminals who have committed violent and serious crimes — with conjugal visits!” said a state senator in a statement widely covered by the press. “They want to spend more [taxpayer money] on luxuries for dangerous criminals!”

The Prison of the Future

When Doran Larson investigated an open prison in Finland, where prisoners live in dorms, work in town, and visit their families regularly, she wrote in The Atlantic about two reasons why such permissive policies exist in Scandinavian prisons. 

One reason is that the professionals who run Scandinavian prisons face much less political pressure than administrators in the United States, some of whom are politically appointed. This insulates prison policy from politicians like Bennett and Paterson, who denounce conjugal visits or the granting of parole. 

The second reason is race. Scandinavia has a relatively homogenous racial composition. Since most prisoners look like other Scandinavians, voters see inmates as people like them. In the United States, a majority white country where black and hispanic inmates make up a majority of the prison population , voters and officials with political clout are more likely to see prisoners as an unredeemable “other” that don’t deserve family visits, furlough, or basic rights. 

Given how Parchman developed model policies despite its terrible history, it’s tempting to think that if family visits and furlough could work there, then they could work anywhere. America’s history with conjugal visits, however, shows this is not the case. And even in 1960, when Parchman was held up as model, it still had good policies for all the wrong reasons. 

In 1960, the prison remained a place that segregated prisoners and worked its mostly black convicts hard in the fields. A federal judge later called the living conditions “unfit for human habitation” and working conditions an affront to “modern standards of decency.” In 1961, even as couples like Mildred and George enjoyed Sunday visits, state police imprisoned 300 Freedom Riders at Parchman. The guards—who had instructions from the governor to “ break their spirit, not their bones”—mocked the Freedom Riders and stripped off their clothes and flooded their cells.

Freedom Riders; via Library of Congress 

When Cosmopolitan Magazine profiled Parchman Penitentiary, its warden sounded like a model reformer as he argued that conjugal visits kept families together. The magazine, however, reported that holiday furloughs were reserved for “trusties,” and until 1972, trusties continued to maim and kill their fellow inmates in order to enjoy their privileges. 

When a researcher named Columbus Hopper researched conjugal visits at Parchman in the 1960s, he discovered that the same racist sentiments and desire to maximize productivity still motivated the conjugal visit policy. “Oh, yeah, they are better workers,” a guard told Hopper. “If you let a [n-word] have some on Sunday, he will really go out and do some work for you on Monday.”

Criminologist Dr. Chris Hensley has studied conjugal visit policies. When he talks about it with prison officials, he has told   The Economist , they laugh. It has a “deviant connotation,” he says. 

If we want America’s dark history with conjugal visits to one day be redeemed, that has to change.

For our next post, we investigate a century of debates over pie charts. To get notified when we post it →   join our email list .

This post was written by  Alex Mayyasi .  You can follow him on Twitter  here .

The lead image  of Angola Prison  was taken by Alan Lomax .

Published September 21, 2015 by Priceonomics

• Data Visualization
• Data Studio

Request a Demo

• Subscribe Now

Hearts ignite as love visits return to South Cotabato jail

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Prison authorities and inmates during an inspection in a South Cotabato prison facility in August 2021.

South Cotabato Rehabilitation and Detention Center

GENERAL SANTOS, Philippines – Cupid’s finally allowed back in the South Cotabato provincial jail as conjugal visits resumed ahead of Valentine’s Day.

But the jailers said they would require proof of marriage and COVID-19 vaccination, and reminded couples to bring their own bed sheets because they would not be playing love games with their dirty laundry.

It will be a happy Valentine’s Day – or month – for many inmates at the provincial jail as prison authorities announced on Friday, January 27, the return of conjugal visits by the legal spouses of prisoners. 

The visits were stopped in 2020 as part of precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among inmates. 

With the announcement, the inmates’ hearts are burning with love, but prison authorities advised them to tell their spouses to leave lighters at home.

“Sadya gid ang Valentine’s! (It’s going to be a merry Valentine’s Day!)” an Ilonggo-speaking inmate, in a festive mood, exclaimed in joy as soon as he learned that the love visits have been allowed again in the prison facility. 

But the bad news is that common-law partners may have to wait, and the conjugal visits are definitely not for the unvaccinated. 

Lory Celeste, the warden of the South Cotabato Rehabilitation and Detention Center (SCRDC), said conjugal visitations have been allowed again, but were limited only to legal spouses. 

“We are still studying what to require of unmarried couples,” Celeste said. 

To use the South Cotabato jail’s eight “special rooms” – where inmates and their visiting spouses can just talk or spend intimate time together in private – couples would have to make reservations ahead of time.

Celeste said couples will be asked to show their marriage contracts, valid identification cards, vaccination cards, and health declaration papers. 

This means the unvaccinated won’t be entitled to the love visits.

The conjugal visits will only be allowed on Saturdays and Sundays. 

“We ask couples to spend only two hours in the rooms because there are many other inmates waiting in line, and eager to get in,” Celeste said.

The rooms were cleaned and prepared for the love visits, Celeste said.

Prison authorities said the inmates and their spouses, however, would need to bring their own bed sheets or mattresses because none of the prison staff would do the couples’ dirty laundry. 

The prison facility currently has a population of around 1,200, down from the 1,500 inmates in 2022.

Celeste said the jail population was reduced after authorities freed about 300 inmates who availed of the jail decongestion program based on Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 201 of 2022.

The circular allows the release of inmates who have already served the time needed relative to the pending charges they are facing. 

The program was resorted to because of the congestion being faced by most prison facilities across the country. 

Inmates who may avail of it are those facing charges with a possible jail sentences not exceeding four years. – Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, pnp arrests ex-dbm official tagged in multibillion-peso covid-19 supplies mess.

Court stops Malacañang’s suspension of Abra vice governor

Duque, Lao face graft raps related to ‘irregular’ P41-B transfer

COVID-19 looms over Olympics with several athletes testing positive

DBM to release P27-B overdue health allowance for pandemic workers on July 5

Persons Deprived of Liberty

After percy lapid’s death, there are people who will benefit from his sacrifice.

Philippines’ oldest political prisoner walks free at 85

State university’s special courses bring hope to Iligan inmates

Supreme Court overturns Duterte: Heinous crimes convicts can get GCTA

[Rappler Investigates] The guns of Apollo Quiboloy

Philippine jails

Chr, bucor blame each other for delay in strip search policy review .

[WATCH] Silent Tragedy: Epekto ng war on drugs sa mga bilangguan

Philippines only starting to probe ‘silent tragedy’ of prison deaths

Soccsksargen

Denr warns citizens organizing to capture saltwater crocodile in sarangani bay.

DOH raises alarm on dengue cases in Soccsksargen

DOH isolates two patients for 21 days in Soccsksargen as mpox precaution

LIST: September 2024 special non-working days in PH provinces, cities, towns

State university in General Santos slams inclusion in PNP’s ‘red-tagging’ list

South Cotabato

From quiet place to coal hub: south cotabato village awakens, but at what cost.

LIST: August 2024 special non-working days in PH provinces, cities, towns

New village named after governor’s grandparents created in South Cotabato

Gun attack at South Cotabato house blessing kills farmers’ leader, 3 others

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

• COVID-19 Full Coverage
• Cover Stories
• Ulat Filipino
• Special Reports
• Personal Finance
• Other sports
• Pinoy Achievers
• Immigration Guide
• Science and Research
• Technology, Gadgets and Gaming
• Chika Minute
• Showbiz Abroad
• Family and Relationships
• Art and Culture
• Health and Wellness
• Shopping and Fashion
• Hobbies and Activities
• News Hardcore
• Walang Pasok
• Transportation
• Missing Persons
• Community Bulletin Board
• GMA Public Affairs
• State of the Nation
• Unang Balita
• Balitanghali
• News TV Live

BJMP allows face-to-face visits at jails after two years

The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) will now allow contact visitations for in jail inmates two years after these were suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic.

According to Lei Alviz’s report on “24 Oras”, the BJMP said only immediate family members would be allowed for the face-to-face visits.

Fully-vaccinated individuals will no longer be required to take COVID-19 tests.

A visitor who is unvaccinated will be required to present a negative RT-PCR test within 72 hours of the visit or a negative antigen test within 24 hours of the visitation.

Visits should also be scheduled to prevent the influx of people, the BJMP said.

“Mahalaga 'yung karapatan ng mga PDL natin para sa visitation kasi isa ito sa mga programa na ini-encourage ng BJMP if not of the pandemic. Kasi dito, magkakaroon sila ng oportunidad o pagkakataon na makasama ang kanilang mga kaanak,” said BJMP Spokesperson Supt. Xavier Solda.

(Visitation is an important right of PDLs that the BJMP encourages, if not during the pandemic. It allows them to be with their families.)

Solda said the BJMP was also looking at reinstating conjugal visits.

“Pinapayagan 'yung mga kaanak na mayakap nila, mahawakan nila 'yung kamay ng kanilang kapamilya pero limitado lang po doon kasi marami ring nagtatanong tungkol sa conjugal visitation. But we're moving toward that direction,” Solda said.

(We allow relatives to hug and hold the PDLs’ hands but it is limited to there. Many people are asking about conjugal visitation but we're moving in that direction.)

Further, the police official said electronic visitations or e-dalaw will continue.

"In fact, in-expand pa natin at pina-prioritize natin 'yung mga medyo may edad na. 'Yung mga vulnerable na sa sakit para maiwasan na baka mahawa o mahapo sa byahe eh doon na lamang po sa electronic visitations na lamang sila ma-accommodate,” he added.

(In fact, we’re expanding it and we’re prioritizing those of age. We call on those who are vulnerable to diseases to just opt for electronic visitations.) —Sundy Locus/NB, GMA Integrated News

BuCor allows 4 more days of ‘stay-in conjugal visits’ of PDLs at Bilibid

Persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City have been allowed “stay-in” visits from their loved ones during the holidays, the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) said on Monday, Dec. 26.

“In the spirit of Christmas, joy, and love, BuCor granted conjugal visits to PDLs in NBP, considering that visitation is an integral part of PDLs’ reformation and moral upliftment and to promote their general welfare and basic rights while in the custody of the bureau,” BuCor said in a statement.

There are only four days left for the “stay-in, conjugal visits” from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. -- Dec. 30, 2022 to Jan. 2, 2023,” it said.

“Those who enjoyed the Christmas stay-in visit (held from Dec. 23 to Dec. 26) shall no longer be allowed to avail of the New Year stay-in,” it stressed.

“Only the listed wife or CLW (common-law wife) shall be allowed to enjoy the stay-in privileges, except for those who are pregnant for seven (7) months and above,” it added.

At the same time, BuCor said that children ages three to 12 years old may be considered to visit provided that “it shall be limited to two (2) children per visitor” and that “they shall only be allowed until 4 pm only and shall not be allowed to stay-in overnight.”

BuCor also said:

“Only fully vaccinated visitors shall be allowed to visit, and those unvaccinated must present a negative Rapid Antigen Test taken at least 24 hours to the scheduled visit.

“One entry policy shall be observed - once the visitor exits the prison facility, she will no longer be allowed to re-enter to continue her stay-in.

“Visiting rights and privileges of PDL and/or his visitor who will be caught in possession of contraband and upon the involvement of PDL in any riots, commotions, and other forms of disturbances will be suspended indefinitely.

“Visitors who are caught using a different identity or involved in any fraudulent actions will be banned and suspended indefinitely.

“Visitors are required to strictly observed visiting procedures despite granting visitation privileges and have to undergo a body search and searching of belongings through Walkthrough Metal Detector, Portable Handheld Metal Detector, X-ray Machine, and K9 sniffing process.”

TAGS: #BuCor #NBP #Conjugal visits

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Conjugal association in prison - a world view, additional details.

Box 6000, Dept F , Rockville , MD 20849 , United States

Box 6000 , Rockville , MD 20849-6000 , United States

No download available

Availability.

• Find in a Library

Related Topics

Benefits and risks of conjugal visits in prison: A systematic literature review

Affiliations.

• 1 Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
• 2 School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
• PMID: 34597428
• DOI: 10.1002/cbm.2215

Background: Imprisonment impacts on lives beyond the prisoner's. In particular, family and intimate relationships are affected. Only some countries permit private conjugal visits in prison between a prisoner and community living partner.

Aims: Our aim was to find evidence from published international literature on the safety, benefits or harms of such visits.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using broad search terms, including words like 'private' and 'family', to maximise search sensitivity but strict criteria for inclusion - of visits unobserved by prison staff and away from other prisoners. All included papers were quality assessed. Two of us independently extracted data from included papers, according to a prepared checklist. Meta-analysis was considered.

Results: Seventeen papers were identified from 12 independent studies, all but three of them from North America. The only study of health benefits found a positive association with maintaining sexual relationships. The three before-and-after study of partnership qualities suggested benefit, but conjugal visiting was within a wider family-support programme. Studies with in-prison behaviour as a possible outcome suggest small, if any, association, although one US-wide study found significantly fewer in-prison sexual assaults in states allowing conjugal visiting than those not. Other studies were of prisoner, staff or partner attitudes. There is little evidence of adverse effects, although two qualitative studies raise concerns about the visiting partner's sense of institutionalisation or coercion.

Conclusions: The balance of evidence about conjugal visiting is positive, but there is little of it. As stable family relationships have, elsewhere, been associated with desistance from crime, the contribution of conjugal visiting to these should be better researched.

Keywords: conjugal visit; consensual sex in prisons; imprisonment; prisoners; private visiting.

© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Publication types

• Systematic Review
• Interpersonal Relations
• Risk Assessment
• Sexual Partners

Bureau of Jail Management and Penology(BJMP)

Browse over 1121 from this government agency

REQUEST SUBMITTED

You have submitted an FOI request

Date: Aug. 16, 2021, 6:44 p.m.

PROCESSING REQUEST

Your request is already in review

Date: 2021-08-18 08:47:01.000000

REQUEST SUCCESSFUL

Your request was successful

Date: 2021-08-18 17:30:30.000000

RATE YOUR REQUEST

How was your request?

Conjugal Visits and Married PDLs

Published by Bureau of Jail Management and Penology(BJMP) on Aug. 16, 2021. Requested from BJMP by D. Literato at 06:44 PM on Aug. 16, 2021. Purpose: Thesis Date of Coverage: 01/01/2012 - 08/16/2021 Tracking no: #BJMP-953534050357

A.REINOSO Aug. 16, 2021, 6:44 p.m.

J.BUSTINERA Aug. 18, 2021, 8:47 a.m.

O.DIRECTORIAL STAFF Aug. 18, 2021, 5:30 p.m.

Attachments:

Is this request offensive?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information.

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators.

• Share this Request Share this Request

This request link has been copied to the clipboard. Paste anywhere to share anywhere.

Report Request

Please state your reason.

• Login or Sign up

Conjugal Visits in Prison Discourse - Is It Even an Offender Rehabilitation Option in Africa

Philippine e-Legal Forum

Philippine laws and legal system (pnl-law blog).

Title IV. Property Relations Between Husband and Wife (Family Code of the Philippines)

[ Family Code of the Philippines : Title I , Title II , Title III , Title IV, Title V , Title VI , Title VII , Title VIII , Title IX , Title X , Title XI , and Title XII ]

  PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE

Chapter 1. general provisions.

Art. 74. The property relationship between husband and wife shall be governed in the following order:

(1) By marriage settlements executed before the marriage;

(2) By the provisions of this Code; and

(3) By the local custom. (118)

Art. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime. In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property as established in this Code shall govern. (119a)

Art. 76. In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid, it must be made before the celebration of the marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136. (121)

Art. 77. The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be in writing, signed by the parties and executed before the celebration of the marriage. They shall not prejudice third persons unless they are registered in the local civil registry where the marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties. (122a)

Art. 78. A minor who according to law may contract marriage may also execute his or her marriage settlements, but they shall be valid only if the persons designated in Article 14 to give consent to the marriage are made parties to the agreement, subject to the provisions of Title IX of this Code. (120a)

Art. 79. For the validity of any marriage settlement executed by a person upon whom a sentence of civil interdiction has been pronounced or who is subject to any other disability, it shall be indispensable for the guardian appointed by a competent court to be made a party thereto. (123a)

Art. 80. In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the property relations of the spouses shall be governed by Philippine laws, regardless of the place of the celebration of the marriage and their residence.

This rule shall not apply:

(1) Where both spouses are aliens;

(2) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not situated in the Philippines and executed in the country where the property is located; and

(3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into in the Philippines but affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws require different formalities for its extrinsic validity. (124a)

Art. 81. Everything stipulated in the settlements or contracts referred to in the preceding articles in consideration of a future marriage, including donations between the prospective spouses made therein, shall be rendered void if the marriage does not take place. However, stipulations that do not depend upon the celebration of the marriages shall be valid. (125a)

Chapter 2. Donations by Reason of Marriage

Art. 82. Donations by reason of marriage are those which are made before its celebration, in consideration of the same, and in favor of one or both of the future spouses. (126)

Art. 83. These donations are governed by the rules on ordinary donations established in Title III of Book III of the Civil Code, insofar as they are not modified by the following articles. (127a)

Art. 84. If the future spouses agree upon a regime other than the absolute community of property, they cannot donate to each other in their marriage settlements more than one-fifth of their present property. Any excess shall be considered void.

Donations of future property shall be governed by the provisions on testamentary succession and the formalities of wills. (130a)

Art. 85. Donations by reason of marriage of property subject to encumbrances shall be valid. In case of foreclosure of the encumbrance and the property is sold for less than the total amount of the obligation secured, the donee shall not be liable for the deficiency. If the property is sold for more than the total amount of said obligation, the donee shall be entitled to the excess. (131a)

Art. 86. A donation by reason of marriage may be revoked by the donor in the following cases:

(1) If the marriage is not celebrated or judicially declared void ab initio except donations made in the marriage settlements, which shall be governed by Article 81;

(2) When the marriage takes place without the consent of the parents or guardian, as required by law;

(3) When the marriage is annulled, and the donee acted in bad faith;

(4) Upon legal separation, the donee being the guilty spouse;

(5) If it is with a resolutory condition and the condition is complied with;

(6) When the donee has committed an act of ingratitude as specified by the provisions of the Civil Code on donations in general. (132a)

Art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. (133a)

Chapter 3. System of Absolute Community

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Art. 88. The absolute community of property between spouses shall commence at the precise moment that the marriage is celebrated. Any stipulation, express or implied, for the commencement of the community regime at any other time shall be void. (145a)

Art. 89. No waiver of rights, shares and effects of the absolute community of property during the marriage can be made except in case of judicial separation of property.

When the waiver takes place upon a judicial separation of property, or after the marriage has been dissolved or annulled, the same shall appear in a public instrument and shall be recorded as provided in Article 77. The creditors of the spouse who made such waiver may petition the court to rescind the waiver to the extent of the amount sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. (146a)

Art. 90. The provisions on co-ownership shall apply to the absolute community of property between the spouses in all matters not provided for in this Chapter. (n)

Section 2. What Constitutes Community Property

Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter. (197a)

Art. 92. The following shall be excluded from the community property:

(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property;

(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of the community property;

(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property. (201a)

Art. 93. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community, unless it is proved that it is one of those excluded therefrom. (160)

Section 3. Charges and Obligations of the Absolute Community

Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for:

(1) The support of the spouses, their common children, and legitimate children of either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions of this Code on Support;

(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the community, or by both spouses, or by one spouse with the consent of the other;

(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have been benefited;

(4) All taxes, liens, charges and expenses, including major or minor repairs, upon the community property;

(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during marriage upon the separate property of either spouse used by the family;

(6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional or vocational course, or other activity for self-improvement;

(7) Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the family;

(8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement;

(9) Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse other than those falling under paragraph (7) of this Article, the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, and liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason of a crime or a quasi-delict, in case of absence or insufficiency of the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse, the payment of which shall be considered as advances to be deducted from the share of the debtor-spouse upon liquidation of the community; and

(10) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to be groundless.

If the community property is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, except those falling under paragraph (9), the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties. (161a, 162a, 163a, 202a-205a)

Art. 95. Whatever may be lost during the marriage in any game of chance, betting, sweepstakes, or any other kind of gambling, whether permitted or prohibited by law, shall be borne by the loser and shall not be charged to the community but any winnings therefrom shall form part of the community property. (164a)

Section 4. Ownership, Administrative,

ENJOYMENT AND DISPOSITION OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY

Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (206a)

Art. 97. Either spouse may dispose by will of his or her interest in the community property. (n)

Art. 98. Neither spouse may donate any community property without the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from the community property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress. (n)

Section 5. Dissolution of Absolute Community Regime

Art. 99. The absolute community terminates:

(1) Upon the death of either spouse;

(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;

(3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or

(4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under Articles 134 to 138. (175a)

Art. 100. The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of absolute community except that:

(1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause, shall not have the right to be supported;

(2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the other is required by law, judicial authorization shall be obtained in a summary proceeding;

(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)

Art. 101. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property or for authority to be the sole administrator of the absolute community, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose.

The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital, parental or property relations.

A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when her or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. (178a)

Section 6. Liquidation of the Absolute Community

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

Art. 102. Upon dissolution of the absolute community regime, the following procedure shall apply:

(1) An inventory shall be prepared, listing separately all the properties of the absolute community and the exclusive properties of each spouse.

(2) The debts and obligations of the absolute community shall be paid out of its assets. In case of insufficiency of said assets, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 94.

(3) Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter be delivered to each of them.

(4) The net remainder of the properties of the absolute community shall constitute its net assets, which shall be divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the marriage settlements, or unless there has been a voluntary waiver of such share provided in this Code. For purpose of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Articles 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution.

(5) The presumptive legitimes of the common children shall be delivered upon partition, in accordance with Article 51.

(6) Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, in the partition of the properties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has decided otherwise. In case there in no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best interests of said children. (n)

Art. 103. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the community property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.

If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the community property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six months period, no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the community property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)

Art. 104. Whenever the liquidation of the community properties of two or more marriages contracted by the same person before the effectivity of this Code is carried out simultaneously, the respective capital, fruits and income of each community shall be determined upon such proof as may be considered according to the rules of evidence. In case of doubt as to which community the existing properties belong, the same shall be divided between the different communities in proportion to the capital and duration of each. (189a)

Chapter 4. Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Art. 105. In case the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that the regime of conjugal partnership gains shall govern their property relations during marriage, the provisions in this Chapter shall be of supplementary application.

The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256. (n)

Art. 106. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance, and, upon dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained by either or both spouses shall be divided equally between them, unless otherwise agreed in the marriage settlements. (142a)

Art. 107. The rules provided in Articles 88 and 89 shall also apply to conjugal partnership of gains. (n)

Art. 108. The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the rules on the contract of partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is expressly determined in this Chapter or by the spouses in their marriage settlements. (147a)

Section 2. Exclusive Property of Each Spouse

Art. 109. The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse:

(1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;

(2) That which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title;

(3) That which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter or by exchange with property belonging to only one of the spouses; and

(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the husband. (148a)

Art. 110. The spouses retain the ownership, possession, administration and enjoyment of their exclusive properties.

Either spouse may, during the marriage, transfer the administration of his or her exclusive property to the other by means of a public instrument, which shall be recorded in the registry of property of the place the property is located. (137a, 168a, 169a)

Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property, without the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in court to litigate with regard to the same. (n)

Art. 112. The alienation of any exclusive property of a spouse administered by the other automatically terminates the administration over such property and the proceeds of the alienation shall be turned over to the owner-spouse. (n)

Art. 113. Property donated or left by will to the spouses, jointly and with designation of determinate shares, shall pertain to the donee-spouses as his or her own exclusive property, and in the absence of designation, share and share alike, without prejudice to the right of accretion when proper. (150a)

Art. 114. If the donations are onerous, the amount of the charges shall be borne by the exclusive property of the donee spouse, whenever they have been advanced by the conjugal partnership of gains. (151a)

Art. 115. Retirement benefits, pensions, annuities, gratuities, usufructs and similar benefits shall be governed by the rules on gratuitous or onerous acquisitions as may be proper in each case. (n)

Section 3. Conjugal Partnership Property

Art. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. (160a)

Art. 117. The following are conjugal partnership properties:

(1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;

(2) Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both of the spouses;

(3) The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received during the marriage from the common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive property of each spouse;

(4) The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure which the law awards to the finder or owner of the property where the treasure is found;

(5) Those acquired through occupation such as fishing or hunting;

(6) Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the partnership in excess of the number of each kind brought to the marriage by either spouse; and

(7) Those which are acquired by chance, such as winnings from gambling or betting. However, losses therefrom shall be borne exclusively by the loser-spouse. (153a, 154a, 155, 159)

Art. 118. Property bought on installments paid partly from exclusive funds of either or both spouses and partly from conjugal funds belongs to the buyer or buyers if full ownership was vested before the marriage and to the conjugal partnership if such ownership was vested during the marriage. In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon liquidation of the partnership. (n)

Art. 119. Whenever an amount or credit payable within a period of time belongs to one of the spouses, the sums which may be collected during the marriage in partial payments or by installments on the principal shall be the exclusive property of the spouse. However, interests falling due during the marriage on the principal shall belong to the conjugal partnership. (156a, 157a)

Art. 120. The ownership of improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses shall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the original owner-spouse, subject to the following rules:

When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.

In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. (158a)

Section 4. Charges Upon and Obligations of the Conjugal Partnership

Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:

(1) The support of the spouse, their common children, and the legitimate children of either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions of this Code on Support;

(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them with the consent of the other;

(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have benefited;

(4) All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or minor repairs upon the conjugal partnership property;

(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during the marriage upon the separate property of either spouse;

(6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional, vocational, or other activity for self-improvement;

(8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement; and

(9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to groundless.

If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties. (161a)

Art. 122. The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal properties partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family.

Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon them be charged to the partnership.

However, the payment of personal debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage, that of fines and indemnities imposed upon them, as well as the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, may be enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding Article have been covered, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient; but at the time of the liquidation of the partnership, such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the purpose above-mentioned. (163a)

Art. 123. Whatever may be lost during the marriage in any game of chance or in betting, sweepstakes, or any other kind of gambling whether permitted or prohibited by law, shall be borne by the loser and shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership but any winnings therefrom shall form part of the conjugal partnership property. (164a)

Section 5. Administration of the Conjugal Partnership Property

Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (165a)

Art. 125. Neither spouse may donate any conjugal partnership property without the consent of the other. However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from the conjugal partnership property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress. (174a)

Section 6. Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership Regime

Art. 126. The conjugal partnership terminates:

Art. 127. The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of conjugal partnership, except that:

(3) In the absence of sufficient conjugal partnership property, the separate property of both spouses shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family. The spouse present shall, upon 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)

Art. 128. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligation to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose.

A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. (167a, 191a)

Section 7. Liquidation of the Conjugal Partnership Assets and Liabilities

Art. 129. Upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime, the following procedure shall apply:

(1) An inventory shall be prepared, listing separately all the properties of the conjugal partnership and the exclusive properties of each spouse.

(2) Amounts advanced by the conjugal partnership in payment of personal debts and obligations of either spouse shall be credited to the conjugal partnership as an asset thereof.

(3) Each spouse shall be reimbursed for the use of his or her exclusive funds in the acquisition of property or for the value of his or her exclusive property, the ownership of which has been vested by law in the conjugal partnership.

(4) The debts and obligations of the conjugal partnership shall be paid out of the conjugal assets. In case of insufficiency of said assets, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 121.

(5) Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter be delivered to each of them.

(6) Unless the owner had been indemnified from whatever source, the loss or deterioration of movables used for the benefit of the family, belonging to either spouse, even due to fortuitous event, shall be paid to said spouse from the conjugal funds, if any.

(7) The net remainder of the conjugal partnership properties shall constitute the profits, which shall be divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the marriage settlements or unless there has been a voluntary waiver or forfeiture of such share as provided in this Code.

(8) The presumptive legitimes of the common children shall be delivered upon the partition in accordance with Article 51.

(9) In the partition of the properties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has decided otherwise. In case there is no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best interests of said children. (181a, 182a, 183a, 184a, 185a)

Art. 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.

If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six-month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

Art. 131. Whenever the liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties of two or more marriages contracted by the same person before the effectivity of this Code is carried out simultaneously, the respective capital, fruits and income of each partnership shall be determined upon such proof as may be considered according to the rules of evidence. In case of doubt as to which partnership the existing properties belong, the same shall be divided between the different partnerships in proportion to the capital and duration of each. (189a)

Art. 132. The Rules of Court on the administration of estates of deceased persons shall be observed in the appraisal and sale of property of the conjugal partnership, and other matters which are not expressly determined in this Chapter. (187a)

Art. 133. From the common mass of property support shall be given to the surviving spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property and until what belongs to them is delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them. (188a)

Chapter 5. Separation of Property of the Spouses and Administration of Common Property by One Spouse During the Marriage

Art. 134. In the absence of an express declaration in the marriage settlements, the separation of property between spouses during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order. Such judicial separation of property may either be voluntary or for sufficient cause. (190a)

Art. 135. Any of the following shall be considered sufficient cause for judicial separation of property:

(1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction;

(2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially declared an absentee;

(3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of petitioner has been decreed by the court;

(4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter or failed to comply with his or her obligations to the family as provided for in Article 101;

(5) That the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements has abused that power; and

(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.

In the cases provided for in Numbers (1), (2) and (3), the presentation of the final judgment against the guilty or absent spouse shall be enough basis for the grant of the decree of judicial separation of property. (191a)

Art. 136. The spouses may jointly file a verified petition with the court for the voluntary dissolution of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains, and for the separation of their common properties.

All creditors of the absolute community or of the conjugal partnership of gains, as well as the personal creditors of the spouse, shall be listed in the petition and notified of the filing thereof. The court shall take measures to protect the creditors and other persons with pecuniary interest. (191a)

Art. 137. Once the separation of property has been decreed, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains shall be liquidated in conformity with this Code.

During the pendency of the proceedings for separation of property, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall pay for the support of the spouses and their children. (192a)

Art. 138. After dissolution of the absolute community or of the conjugal partnership, the provisions on complete separation of property shall apply. (191a)

Art. 139. The petition for separation of property and the final judgment granting the same shall be recorded in the proper local civil registries and registries of property. (193a)

Art. 140. The separation of property shall not prejudice the rights previously acquired by creditors. (194a)

Art. 141. The spouses may, in the same proceedings where separation of property was decreed, file a motion in court for a decree reviving the property regime that existed between them before the separation of property in any of the following instances:

(1) When the civil interdiction terminates;

(2) When the absentee spouse reappears;

(3) When the court, being satisfied that the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements will not again abuse that power, authorizes the resumption of said administration;

(4) When the spouse who has left the conjugal home without a decree of legal separation resumes common life with the other;

(5) When parental authority is judicially restored to the spouse previously deprived thereof;

(6) When the spouses who have separated in fact for at least one year, reconcile and resume common life; or

(7) When after voluntary dissolution of the absolute community of property or conjugal partnership has been judicially decreed upon the joint petition of the spouses, they agree to the revival of the former property regime. No voluntary separation of property may thereafter be granted.

The revival of the former property regime shall be governed by Article 67. (195a)

Art. 142. The administration of all classes of exclusive property of either spouse may be transferred by the court to the other spouse:

(1) When one spouse becomes the guardian of the other;

(2) When one spouse is judicially declared an absentee;

(3) When one spouse is sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction; or

(4) When one spouse becomes a fugitive from justice or is in hiding as an accused in a criminal case.

If the other spouse is not qualified by reason of incompetence, conflict of interest, or any other just cause, the court shall appoint a suitable person to be the administrator. (n)

Chapter 6. Regime of Separation of Property

Art. 143. Should the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that their property relations during marriage shall be governed by the regime of separation of property, the provisions of this Chapter shall be suppletory. (212a)

Art. 144. Separation of property may refer to present or future property or both. It may be total or partial. In the latter case, the property not agreed upon as separate shall pertain to the absolute community. (213a)

Art. 145. Each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer and enjoy his or her own separate estate, without need of the consent of the other. To each spouse shall belong all earnings from his or her profession, business or industry and all fruits, natural, industrial or civil, due or received during the marriage from his or her separate property. (214a)

Art. 146. Both spouses shall bear the family expenses in proportion to their income, or, in case of insufficiency or default thereof, to the current market value of their separate properties.

The liabilities of the spouses to creditors for family expenses shall, however, be solidary. (215a)

Chapter 7. Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage

Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. (144a)

Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.

The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith. (144a)

• Recent Posts

• Extension of Filing Periods and Suspension of Hearings for March 29 to April 4, 2021: SC Administrative Circular No. 14-2021 (Full Text) - March 28, 2021
• ECQ Bubble for NCR, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Rizal: Resolution No. 106-A (Full Text) - March 27, 2021
• Guidelines on the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines in the Workplaces (Labor Advisory No. 3) - March 12, 2021
• Title III. Rights and Obligations Between Husband and Wife (Family Code of the Philippines)
• Complete Separation of Property During Marriage
• Common-Law Marriage (Live-in Relationships) in the Philippines

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

AttyAtWork * VisitPinas * ChatTimeWithJulia RSS Entries and RSS Comments

Understanding Conjugal Properties in the Philippines: What Spouses Need to Know

• September 17, 2024
• No Comments

Conjugal Property in the Philippines

According to Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines , marriage is defined as a formal and legal union between a man and a woman, intended for lifelong partnership in building a family and sharing marital life. Additionally, all properties acquired during the marriage are considered conjugal property. Prior to marriage, it is advisable for both individuals to write and sign a prenuptial agreement. This document establishes their respective rights to property and support in the event of death or divorce, ensuring clarity and fairness in their legal arrangements.

What are the Types of Conjugal Property in the Philippines?

Before marriage, a prenuptial agreement is essential. This type of agreement outlines how the property is divided between the spouse. In addition, there are three (3) types of conjugal property that both individuals may choose, which are the following:

• Absolute Community of Property considers all properties acquired by both spouses before and during marriage as shared. However, there are exceptions to this rule. If a spouse owned property before the marriage, particularly if they have a child/children from a previous marriage, that property remains separate. Additionally, donations or inheritances received during the marriage are considered as separate property unless the donor or testator specifies otherwise.
• Conjugal Partnership of Gains is when a husband and wife marry, they retain ownership of the properties they individually owned before marriage. However, any income, profits, or gains earned from these separate properties during the marriage are considered shared assets.
• Complete Separation of Property means that each spouse has exclusive ownership over certain property or assets that are completely separate from those owned by the other spouse.

Furthermore, according to Article 75 of the Family Code , the future spouses may choose from the mentioned types of conjugal property regimes in their marriage settlements. However, in the absence of a marriage settlement or if the chosen regime is invalid, the system of absolute community of property will apply.

What are the Conjugal Assets in the Philippines?

In accordance with Article 116 of the Family Code of the Philippines , all property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved. In this regard, the following types of properties can be acquired by both spouses:

• Real Estate. Properties like houses, apartments, condominiums or lands acquired during marriage are considered joint assets. It reflects shared financial contributions and efforts in their acquisition, maintenance and improvement of the properties. 
• Financial Accounts and Investments. Bank accounts, investments, and retirement funds accumulated during marriage are considered conjugal assets.
• Vehicles. Cars, motorcycles, and other motor vehicles purchased during marriage are part of the conjugal property. This acknowledges that both spouses have shared decisions and responsibilities for purchasing and using these vehicles throughout their marital relationship. 
• Household Items. House furniture, appliances, electronics, and other items acquired during marriage may be considered conjugal assets.
• Business Interests. Ventures, startups or any type of business started during marriage are considered as conjugal property. Any interests earned in the business must be divided equally between spouses.

Moreover, the aforementioned types of properties are shared between marriages under an absolute community property regime in the absence of a prenuptial agreement, where all assets acquired by either spouse during marriage are jointly owned. However, the inherited property, donated property, and other properties acquired before the marriage are excluded from conjugal property.

What Happens to the Conjugal Property When a Marriage Ends?

In the Philippines, marriages under absolute community property involve division of conjugal properties upon legal separation or annulment . In legal separation, all conjugal properties are awarded to the innocent spouse. On this matter, the court will be the one who determines who is the innocent spouse. While in annulment cases, the conjugal properties will be equally divided between the spouses. However, the family home will be given to the spouse who resides with their child/children to ensure their welfare. 

What Happens to the Conjugal Property After the Death of a Spouse?

Under Philippine law, if a person dies without a last will and testament (intestate), their surviving spouse and child/children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, will inherit their properties or assets. On the other hand, if there is a written will (testate), the distribution of the decedent’s properties will be distributed according to his/her instructions in the will.

How to Protect My Personal Assets When Married in the Philippines?

Managing conjugal properties and liabilities is crucial in marriages. Therefore, establishing boundaries between your personal assets and shared assets with your spouse is necessary. The following are some of the practical ways to protect your personal property when married in the Philippines: 

• Prenuptial Agreement. This type of legal document is controversial for some couples. However, it is a practical and logical way to specify ownership boundaries. It outlines how shared properties and liabilities will be managed and divided in case of divorce, legal separation, annulment, or the death of a spouse. Additionally, it can protect your personal assets from any financial obligations.
• Discuss and Disclose Financial Situation. Openly discussing your financial situation with your spouse is key to preventing future financial conflicts. Disclosing both assets and debts helps both parties make informed decisions and plan effectively together.
• Separate Bank Accounts. Maintaining separate bank accounts allows each spouse to track their personal finances and liabilities independently. Moreover, if the married couple wishes to track and manage their shared expenses and savings goals then a joint bank account is necessary.  
• Make Financial Decisions. In marriage, making financial decisions together strengthens marital unity, and ensures both parties understand and agree on their financial situation. Regular financial discussions enable both partners to carefully analyze their financial circumstances, reach agreements, and prevent misunderstandings.
• Consult with Legal Professionals. Seeking advice from legal professionals specializing in family law is crucial. They can provide guidance on setting boundaries with personal and conjugal properties, explain relevant laws, and help protect assets and mitigate financial obligations.

Need further information and assistance regarding Conjugal Property ? Talk to our team at Duran & Duran-Schulze Law to know more about the requirements and process. Call us today at (+632) 8478 5826 or +63 917 194 0482 ,  or send an email to [email protected] for more information.

You may also visit our Legally Sis Podcast channel here: 

Latest blogs.

Separation Pay in the Philippines: What Every Employee Should Know

Understanding the difference between final pay and separation pay in the philippines.

Understanding the Difference between Annulment and Divorce in the Philippines

How to File and Get an Affidavit of Loss

Ask Us Anything!

• [email protected]

(02) 8478 5826 / +63 917 194 0482

• Unit 1210 Highstreet South Corporate Plaza Tower 2, 26th St., Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City, 1634

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Automatic Violation of VAWC (RA 9262)

Featured article on asia law portal, trademark litigation: "consumers missing party"​​, inheritance of ip rights: "necessity of ip owners", get in touch.

• (02) 8478 5826
• +63 917 194 0482

© duranschulze.com

Connect With Us

Atty. marie christine, atty. wendy, let us handle the rest while you grow your business, consult now, need expert legal advice on corporate & business law schedule a consultation with atty. marie christine duran-schulze now., need expert legal advice on litigation schedule a consultation with atty. mary wendy duran now..