How Can You File an Accounting Action Against an Ex-Spouse?

Introduction

When spouses separate, disputes often arise over businesses, bank accounts, investments, real property, and other assets acquired during the marriage. The difficulty becomes greater when one spouse controlled the family finances and refuses to disclose records needed to determine the correct division or liquidation of marital property.

An action for accounting and inventory may help identify assets, liabilities, income, expenses, and transfers. However, a former spouse cannot automatically be compelled to disclose every financial record. The request must be connected to the marital property regime, the issues in the case, and the relief sought from the court.

The liquidation of marital property depends on whether the spouses were governed by absolute community of property, conjugal partnership of gains, or separation of property. The court must first determine the applicable regime and the legal effect of the separation, annulment, declaration of nullity, or other judgment affecting the marriage.

What Is an Accounting and Inventory Action?

An inventory identifies the assets and liabilities that may belong to the marital estate. An accounting explains how those assets were acquired, administered, sold, transferred, encumbered, or otherwise used.

Depending on the case, the requested accounting may include:

• real and personal property acquired during the marriage;
• business income, expenses, and profits;
• bank accounts and investment accounts;
• loans, mortgages, and other obligations;
• proceeds from the sale of marital property;
• rents, dividends, and other income; and
• transfers made before or after the spouses separated.

The action should not be framed as an unrestricted demand to inspect the former spouse’s entire private life. Each category of information should be tied to a property, transaction, obligation, or accounting period relevant to the liquidation.

Which Property Regime Governs?

The governing property regime determines what must be accounted for and what may ultimately be divided. The Family Code contains provisions on the liquidation of absolute community property and conjugal partnership property, including the applicable rules on assets, liabilities, and net profits (Family Code).

For a conjugal partnership of gains, the Supreme Court held in Quiao v. Quiao, et al., G.R. No. 176556, 2012, that the liquidation of the partnership after dissolution is governed by the Family Code provisions applicable to conjugal partnership property. The Court also recognized that the computation of net profits is relevant to the forfeiture and distribution consequences arising from the dissolution of the marriage (Quiao v. Quiao, et al.).

Older rules under the Civil Code may still appear in cases involving marriages, property arrangements, or events governed by the former law. They should not be applied without first determining the date of the marriage, the applicable law, and whether a valid marriage settlement exists.

When May a Spouse Seek Judicial Separation or Control of Property?

Physical separation alone does not automatically justify judicial separation of property or an accounting of every asset held by the other spouse. In De la Cruz v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 19565, 1968, the Supreme Court explained that abandonment, for purposes of separating conjugal property under the Civil Code, required more than physical separation. The case involved financial and moral desertion or a clear abuse of the administration of conjugal assets (De la Cruz v. De la Cruz).

Similarly, in Ysasi v. Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. 28593, 1968, the Supreme Court recognized that the husband’s statutory administration of conjugal partnership property could be challenged, but that removal or intervention required proof of abuse. Mere allegations of fraud or mismanagement were insufficient without supporting evidence (Ysasi v. Fernandez, et al.).

These principles do not prevent a party from seeking records in a properly filed liquidation or accounting case. They do mean that the pleading should allege specific facts showing why the records are relevant and why court intervention is necessary.

How Should the Complaint Be Prepared?

The complaint should clearly identify the legal relationship between the parties, the property regime, the relevant dates, and the relief sought. It should also distinguish between property that is allegedly marital and property that is claimed to be exclusive.

The pleading should ordinarily state:

• the date and place of marriage;
• the existence or absence of a marriage settlement;
• the date and legal basis of the spouses’ separation or dissolution of the property regime;
• the assets and liabilities believed to belong to the marital estate;
• the former spouse’s role in administering or controlling those assets;
• the requests for information previously made and the refusal or failure to respond;
• the accounting period; and
• the specific accounting, inventory, turnover, liquidation, and related relief requested.

A general allegation that the former spouse “has hidden all assets” may be vulnerable to challenge. Stronger allegations identify particular accounts, businesses, properties, transactions, or income streams and explain why each is connected to the marital estate.

How Can Court Subpoenas Be Used?

A subpoena is a court process used to require a person to attend, testify, or produce identified documents or things. A subpoena duces tecum should therefore describe the records with reasonable specificity and explain their connection to the issues in the case.

Examples of potentially relevant records include:

• bank statements for identified accounts and defined periods;
• deposit and withdrawal records concerning proceeds from a marital-property sale;
• business ledgers, general journals, invoices, and financial statements;
• tax returns and supporting schedules, where relevant and properly requested;
• loan documents, mortgage records, and payment histories;
• securities, investment, or dividend records; and
• documents concerning the acquisition, sale, or transfer of identified property.

The request should avoid wording such as “all financial records from all institutions for all time.” A court may narrow or deny an overbroad request, particularly where it invades privacy or seeks information unrelated to liquidation.

Can a Subpoena Compel Disclosure of Bank Records?

Bank records require particular care because bank secrecy and privacy rules may restrict disclosure. The existence of a marital dispute does not by itself authorize unrestricted access to a former spouse’s bank accounts.

In Apostol, et al. v. Lubigan-Rafael, et al., G.R. No. 260640, 2025, the Supreme Court explained that the statutory exception allowing inquiry into bank deposits applies when the money deposited is itself the subject matter of the litigation, not merely when the inquiry is intended to discover the existence, nature, or amount of a deposit. The available case material does not provide the exact date of the decision, so that date should be verified before publication or formal citation (Apostol, et al. v. Lubigan-Rafael, et al.).

Accordingly, a request for bank records should identify the disputed funds or transaction. For example, a subpoena concerning the proceeds of a specified sale of marital property is more defensible than a request for every account maintained by the former spouse throughout the marriage and after separation.

The pleading should also explain whether the records are sought from the former spouse, a bank, an employer, a business, a broker, or another custodian. The court may impose protective conditions, limit the production period, require redaction, or restrict access to counsel and the parties.

What Evidence Supports the Request?

The application for a subpoena should be supported by documents and allegations showing a reasonable connection between the requested records and the disputed property. Useful supporting evidence may include titles, deeds, corporate records, loan documents, receipts, payment confirmations, prior financial statements, tax documents, messages acknowledging ownership, and records of property sales.

Evidence is particularly important where the applicant alleges abuse of administration, concealment, diversion, or unauthorized disposition. In Ysasi v. Fernandez, et al., the Supreme Court emphasized that allegations alone do not establish abuse sufficient to justify court intervention in the administration of conjugal property (Ysasi v. Fernandez, et al.).

Where the requesting spouse does not possess the records, the complaint should state what is known, how the information was obtained, why the documents are unavailable, and why the identified custodian is likely to have them.

Can the Court Order an Inventory and Turnover?

Yes, when the requested relief is supported by the applicable property regime and the evidence. The court may direct an accounting, require production of records, order the identification of assets and liabilities, and determine the proper method of liquidation.

The relief should be tailored to the case. Possible orders may concern:

• submission of a sworn inventory;
• production of records for identified accounts or transactions;
• appointment of an independent accountant or commissioner;
• preservation of records and property;
• accounting for income received from marital property; and
• turnover of documents or property shown to belong to the marital estate.

The court should not be asked to decide ownership solely on the basis of an incomplete inventory. The accounting process identifies the property and transactions; the liquidation process determines the parties’ respective rights after liabilities, charges, and legally required deductions are considered.

What Are the Risks of Filing Overlapping Cases?

A party should determine whether an existing annulment, declaration of nullity, legal separation, property-separation, liquidation, or support case already includes the requested relief. Filing substantially identical cases may create jurisdictional and procedural problems.

In Uematsu v. Balinon, G.R. No. 234812, 2019, the Supreme Court explained that forum shopping may arise when a party files multiple cases involving the same parties, causes of action, and reliefs, particularly where a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in another (Uematsu v. Balinon).

The complaint, therefore, should disclose related proceedings and explain why the requested accounting belongs in the present action or should be raised by motion in an existing case.

How Should a Subpoena Request Be Drafted?

A focused request should contain four basic components: the custodian, the documents, the time period, and the connection to the disputed property.

For example, instead of requesting “all bank records,” the request may identify the bank, branch, account if known, period, and transaction involved. It may ask for records showing the receipt and disposition of proceeds from the sale of a specifically identified property acquired during the marriage.

The application should also state that the production is sought for the limited purpose of determining the marital estate, tracing identified funds, computing liabilities or net profits, and completing liquidation. This helps demonstrate relevance and reduces the risk that the request will be treated as an improper fishing expedition.

Practical Litigation Checklist

• Confirm the applicable property regime and the date it was dissolved or affected.
• Prepare a preliminary inventory based on available titles, contracts, tax records, and communications.
• Separate clearly identified marital property from assets claimed to be exclusive.
• Identify specific accounts, businesses, properties, transactions, custodians, and accounting periods.
• Request only records reasonably related to the disputed assets or liabilities.
• Address bank secrecy, privacy, confidentiality, and protective-order concerns.
• Disclose related proceedings to avoid forum-shopping allegations.
• Seek an independent accounting or commissioner when the records are extensive or technically complex.

Conclusion

An accounting and inventory action can provide a lawful method for determining what property belongs to the marital estate and how it was administered. Its effectiveness depends on identifying the governing property regime, pleading specific facts, proving the relevance of the requested documents, and using subpoenas narrowly rather than demanding unrestricted access to all financial information.

A former spouse seeking records should first assemble the available evidence, identify the transactions that require explanation, and connect every requested document to the liquidation issues. Bank records and other confidential information require particular attention because the court may limit disclosure when the request merely seeks to discover whether an account exists rather than to examine funds that are themselves the subject of the litigation.

The safest litigation approach is a targeted one: identify the asset, identify the transaction, identify the custodian, specify the period, and explain why production is necessary for the court to complete the accounting and liquidation.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.