FamilyCode.ph is built around one editorial rule: important claims should be understandable, traceable to reliable sources, and presented with enough context for a reader to know what the rule means and what to do next.
This policy explains how FamilyCode researches and publishes material on Philippine family law — marriage, annulment and nullity, legal separation, custody and parental authority, support, property relations between spouses, adoption, foreign divorce, civil registry documents and Family Court procedure.
Our Editorial Goal
Our goal is to make Philippine family law easier to find, understand, verify and act on, without blurring the line between binding law, court doctrine, agency procedure and editorial explanation.
FamilyCode is not a substitute for official sources or for a lawyer. It is designed to help a reader identify the rule that applies, the evidence and documents it turns on, and the correct next step.
Our Source Hierarchy
We prioritise primary Philippine sources whenever they are available, and we distinguish official copies of a legal text from unofficial ones.
- Statutes and official legal text: the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, s. 1987) and the Republic Acts and executive issuances that have amended it, as published by the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
- Judicial authority: Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court E-Library, and the Court’s rules of procedure governing family cases.
- Regulatory and administrative authority: issuances of the Philippine Statistics Authority, the Office of the Civil Registrar General, the Department of Social Welfare and Development, the National Authority for Child Care, the Department of Foreign Affairs and other competent agencies.
- Legislative status: Senate and House records, when a guide discusses a pending measure.
- Unofficial repositories: privately maintained collections such as LawPhil are useful for locating and reading legal text, but they are not government publications. Where an official and an unofficial copy of the same text both exist, the official one governs and is the one we cite as authoritative.
- Secondary sources: used only where they add context, and never as a substitute for an available primary authority. We do not build a legal statement on another commentator’s summary of the law.
How We Research a Guide
- Define the actual reader question. We identify whether the need is legal, procedural, documentary or evidentiary, or a combination.
- Identify the controlling authority. The article of the Family Code or other statute, the rule of procedure, the Supreme Court doctrine, or the agency issuance that governs the question.
- Check current status. Whether the provision has been amended, whether the doctrine has been restated by a later decision, and whether the agency procedure or documentary requirement still stands.
- Cross-check material claims against the underlying primary source — article numbers, case names, periods, fees, and the offices involved.
- Translate the authority into practical language: what the rule means, who it applies to, the common exceptions, and the reasonable next step.
- Cite and date. Guides identify their primary authorities and carry a materially reviewed date where the subject can change.
We Distinguish Different Types of Authority
FamilyCode does not treat every source as if it carried the same weight. An article of the Family Code is not the same as a PSA advisory. A Supreme Court ruling is not the same as a Court of Appeals decision or a pending bill. An agency’s checklist of requirements is not itself the legal standard. Where the distinction affects the answer, we say so.
Family Law Turns on Facts
More than most areas of law, family cases are decided on their particular facts. Courts exercise discretion, guided by the welfare of the child and the evidence actually before them, and the interpretation of individual provisions has shifted materially through Supreme Court decisions.
FamilyCode explains what a provision says and what courts have treated as relevant. It does not predict how a particular court will decide a particular case, and it does not present a likely outcome as a certain one.
When Official Sources Conflict
Official pages can carry inconsistent wording, outdated requirements or transitional rules. When we find a material conflict, we do not quietly pick the reading that produces the cleanest answer. We explain the conflict, identify the sources, and avoid overstating certainty until a controlling rule or a newer official clarification resolves it.
Privacy and Sensitivity
Family-law questions involve sensitive personal circumstances. FamilyCode does not publish reader-submitted facts, does not identify private individuals in its guides, and does not use a reader’s message as material for an article. Where a guide draws on a decided case, it uses the case as published by the courts.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Our Workflow
FamilyCode may use AI-assisted tools for research organisation, drafting support, summarisation, structuring and editorial quality checks. AI output is not treated as a legal authority or a primary source. Editorial responsibility remains with FamilyCode, and material legal, procedural and documentary claims are verified against reliable sources before publication or material update.
Article Structure and Citation Readiness
Where suitable, guides follow a consistent structure designed for both human readers and machine-readable retrieval: a direct answer, key takeaways, the legal basis, the practical steps and documents, common misunderstandings, frequently asked questions, and the official sources relied on. The format is intended to make key propositions easy to understand and cite while preserving the link back to the controlling authority.
Material Review Dates
A modification timestamp does not necessarily mean the substance of a guide was re-researched. For subjects that change, we prefer a visible Last materially reviewed date reflecting when the legal or procedural substance was actually checked.
Corrections
Material errors are corrected promptly, and significant updates may be reflected in the materially reviewed date or in an editorial note. See our Corrections Policy.
Independence and Commercial Influence
Content is not written to favour one spouse, one parent, a government agency, a law firm or a commercial partner. FamilyCode may explain competing legal positions, but it does not manufacture controversy or omit a material limitation to produce a stronger headline. Editorial conclusions are not changed because a commercial party prefers a different answer. If FamilyCode later uses affiliate links, sponsorships or paid relationships, they will be disclosed where relevant and will not determine the legal or factual conclusion of a guide.
Who Is Responsible for FamilyCode
FamilyCode.ph is created and managed by Anton Sheker and Marjo Villarosa. Learn more about the people and the wider network of Philippine legal knowledge platforms on the About page.
Questions About Our Research
If you believe a source is outdated, a doctrine has moved, an agency procedure is no longer current or a material statement needs correction, please use our Contact page.
Last materially reviewed: September 10, 2026.