Philippines, Families in
6 persons in
LARISSA GATA
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
The Filipino family is depicted in the litera-
ture as the foundation of Philippine society.
The Filipino family fosters solidarity and
regulates behavior among its members. Its
structure is reinforced by the legal provisions
of the Philippine Constitution and the Penal
and Family Codes, which prescribe and pro-
tect its rights, obligations, and privileges, as
well as by religion, which defines its moral
and cultural tenets. The Filipino family is
also described as both bilaterally extended
and residentially nuclear (Castillo 1979).
Being bilaterally extended signifies that a
typical Filipino family recognizes an array
of relatives with whom the nuclear family
shares responsibilities, resources, and emo-
tional support. On the other hand, being
residentially nuclear denotes that the dom-
inant living arrangement among Filipino
families usually include spouses and their
unmarried children. Family scholars agree
on this account as they point out that the
prevalence of nuclear families in the Philip-
pines can be observed more in rural than in
urban areas. Regardless of socioeconomic
status, rural-based families tend to be more
nuclear in composition, while urban-based
families tend to be more extended (Morada
and Gregorio 1983). This phenomenon can
be explained by the fact that the cost of living
in urbanized centers is higher than in rural
areas, prompting relatives and nonrelatives
to live together and share in the household
expenditures and workload.
Irrespective of locality, the average size
of the Filipino family household is grad-
ually declining, from 5.3 persons in 1990
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies, First Edition. Edited by Constance L. Shehan.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs251
to 5.0 persons in 2000 to 4.
2010 (National Statistics Office 2012a). This
decline may be attributed to the following
factors: decline in the total fertility rate
from 6.0 children per woman in 1973 to
3.3 in 2008 (National Statistics Office and
ICF Macro 2009); increased independence
and mobility among younger family mem-
bers; rural–urban migration in search of
better income alternatives; and preference
for separate living arrangements by family
members.
Of the estimated 19 million Filipino fami-
lies, about 6 million (31 percent) are classified
as poor, with an annual income of 62,000
pesos (US$1550). The upper 70 percent
income-group families earn an average of
268,000 pesos per year (US$6700). Data
show that women in poor households tend
to bear more children, at an average of 5.2
children per woman, compared to women in
the wealthiest households, at an average of
1.9 children per woman (National Statistics
Office and ICF Macro 2009). The practice of
family planning among Filipinos is correlated
to age, education, and poverty. Contraceptive
use is higher among women aged 20 to 44
years than among women aged 15 to 19
and 45 to 49 years. Married women aged
15 to 19 years are the least likely to practice
family planning, while married women with
some elementary education are less likely to
practice family planning than women with
a higher level of education. Women with
no education are the least likely to practice
family planning. In general, women in poor
households are less likely than nonpoor
women to practice family planning because
they lack access to modern family planning
methods. Poor women are more likely to use
intrauterine devices over ligation or female
sterilization, whereas nonpoor women prefer
2 PHILIPPIN ES, FAM I LIES IN
ligation or sterilization. The most commonly
used contraception for both poor and non-
poor women is the pill (National Statistics
Office 2012b).
The organizational pattern in the Filipino
family is based on the principle of seniority.
Like other Asian cultures, Filipinos put value
on age and birth order in assigning author-
ity, position, and status within the kinship
system, which in turn determine the roles,
duties, and behaviors expected of each family
member. As a rule, the older in age and higher
in the birth order a family member is, the
greater the authority he/she will be given,
irrespective of gender, education, and expe-
rience. Within such a structural background,
Filipino families orient their members on the
values of the family. In general, Filipino fam-
ilies are egalitarian, especially in recognizing
the equal importance of and in giving equal
opportunities to male and female family
members. In addition, a greater emphasis is
placed on maintaining solidarity among fam-
ily members and relatives than on competing
for power and authority. Thus, conforming
to these values involves respect for elders,
mutual assistance to relatives, and kinship
loyalty. Jocano (1995) highlights the standard
values that are inculcated in Filipino chil-
dren regarding how to achieve and maintain
good interpersonal relationships with kin
and other people in general. These values
are related to the concepts of kapwa (fellow
humans), damdamin (feelings), and dangal
(honor). Kapwa pertains to the fact that
Filipinos are expected to treat others equally,
and without discrimination, as fellow human
beings. Damdamin drives Filipinos to strive
hard not to hurt the feelings of their kapwa,
while dangal deals with the moral imperatives
of Filipino culture to live an honest and digni-
fied existence amid hardship. However, some
scholars view this family-centered orientation
as clannish and therefore detrimental to
nation-building (see Suazo 2010).
Membership in the Filipino kinship sys-
tem is acquired through blood relationships
(consanguinity), marriage (affinity), or rit-
uals (ceremony). Kinship by consanguinity
is established by tracing and recognizing
ancestry even beyond the third degree of
consanguinity, including great-grandparents
to great-grandchildren and their siblings.
Grandparents are important members of Fil-
ipino kinship because they provide support to
younger generations, especially in child care.
Filipino families trace their ancestry from
both paternal and maternal kin, a bilateral
descent system that further strengthens the
kin group. Kinship by affinity, in contrast, is
acquired through marriage, wherein spouses
become affinal kin to both sides. These affi-
nal relationships are formed not only with
parents-in-law but also with siblings-in-law
and their spouses. The extension of familial
networks through marriage is crucial in
maintaining stable conjugal bonds among
newlyweds. In the Philippines, marriage is
not just a union between two individuals
but more importantly a unification of fam-
ilies. Lastly, ceremonial kinship is drawn
through rituals of baptism, confirmation,
and marriage. These religious practices, espe-
cially among Filipino Catholics, entail the
involvement of a set of sponsors who act as
ninong (godfather) and ninang (godmother)
to their inaanak (sponsored individual or
couple). These sponsors are considered as
co-parents to the sponsored child or couple.
As co-parents, the sponsors and the par-
ents of the sponsored refer to one another
as kumpare (male) and kumare (female), a
system usually referred to as compadrazgo
(co-parenthood) or, in the Philippines, the
kumpadre system. Such familial connections
are likewise extended to the children of
the sponsors, wherein they are expected to
regard the sponsored individuals as their own
siblings (see Medina 2001, 31–32).

Maintaining strong kinship bonds allows
Filipino families to secure financial, psy-
chological, and moral support, especially
in times of crises and emergencies. During
natural calamities and disasters, which are
prevalent in the Philippines, Filipino families
in distress rely mainly on kin assistance (Nel-
son and Guino 2001). These kinship ties are
also important in helping out new migrants
in places of both origin and destination. In
the place of origin, the kinship system may
assist in sending off relatives by helping out
with their transportation costs and other
expenses. At the place of destination, the
kinship system may aid in providing financial
and moral support, accommodation, and job
placement. This chain of migration, which is
usually established by Filipino immigrants in
places such as the United States, the United
Kingdom, or Canada, supports the newly
migrated Filipino families and helps them to
feel at home in the new place while maintain-
ing their bonds with their kinship network
back in the Philippines. This long-distance
relationship among Filipino families across
borders is facilitated by modern computer-
mediated communication channels, which
are used by Filipino transnational families
in maintaining familial intimacy (Parreñas
2005).
Although Filipino families are becom-
ing increasingly mobile, 96.5 percent of the
total population maintained their place of
residence between 2005 and 2012 (National
Statistics Office 2012c). Of the in-country
movers, more than half were long-distance
movers (50.4 percent) whose choices of desti-
nation included three provinces in the Luzon
Islands (in the Philippines), namely Southern
Tagalog, National Capital Region, and Pam-
panga, where myriad employment opportuni-
ties exist. The choice of residence for Filipino
families is crucial in determining social inter-
action and organization among kin. Couples
may establish their residence in either of
PHILIPPIN ES, FAM I LIES IN 3
their parents’ domiciles or start a neolocal
residence away from their families of orien-
tation. Such a decision to separate from their
families of orientation will take into account
a number of factors such as proximity to
workplace, financial capability, availability of
services for child care, and job opportunities.
Separation of families also happens when
members decide to seek jobs overseas. As
of 2013, about 2.2 million overseas Filipino
workers (OFWs) had entered into employ-
ment contracts of two- to four-year periods
to provide for their families back in the
Philippines. Of these, male OFWs are gen-
erally older than their female counterparts;
the median age for male OFWs is 37.3 years
while the median age for female OFWs is 34.0
years. These OFWs are employed as laborers
and unskilled workers (31.3 percent), service
and market sales workers (16.2 percent),
plant and machine operators and assemblers
(12.9 percent), professionals (12.4 percent),
trade workers (12.2 percent), and other occu-
pational groups (15 percent). Saudi Arabia
remains the most favored destination among
OFWs with the United Arab Emirates, Singa-
pore, and Qatar as other popular destinations.
The total remittance sent by OFWs was esti-
mated at 165.5 billion pesos (US$4,137,500)
between April and September 2012. Such
remittances are sent through banks (70.8
percent), door-to-door or courier delivery
(3.7 percent), employment agencies or local
offices (2.5 percent), friends or coworkers
(0.4 percent), and other means (22.6 percent;
National Statistics Office 2013).
Filipino families have witnessed significant
changes in their structure and organization
brought about by increased participation of
women in the labor force, especially in over-
seas work, weakening of the influence of the
family on its individual members, and migra-
tion from rural to urban centers. The role
structure among Filipino families has been
redefined as the number of working wives
4 PHILIPPIN ES, FAM I LIES IN
and mothers has risen due to increasing
employment opportunities, higher educa-
tional achievement in women, reduction in
the number of children, and more legislation
advocating for women’s rights. Both wives
and mothers and their daughters pursue
careers and economic activities outside their
homes due to financial necessity and personal
interest. Thus, the monopoly of husbands and
fathers as breadwinners is being eroded by
the way Filipino families are now depending
on multiple earners, including wives and
mothers, for economic support.
The decline in the family’s influence on its
individual members can be observed among
younger family members, who tend to value
their individual freedom and autonomy more
than the authority of elders. The diminished
authority of elders can be explained partially
as a result of increased education and finan-
cial independence among younger family
members, who have become more dependent
on peers, mass media, and other agencies out-
side the family in solving their problems. Yet
the increasing involvement of women in the
workforce gives greater autonomy to women
but does not exempt them from the double
burden of balancing housekeeping and paid
work. Such career orientation among female
family members is partly blamed for the rise
of absentee parenting in Filipino families.
Other factors include the separation of family
members due to overseas work and migra-
tion. Together, these factors are seen as a
formidable force that increases the fragility
of marriages, which may sometimes result in
separation and annulment, and the creation
of single-parent families.
The number of female-headed families
slightly increased between 1970 and 2009
from 10 percent to 21 percent (Philippine
Commission on Women 2013). The majority
of female heads are widows and separated
and divorced women, who are left with no
choice but to assume the burden of sup-
porting their families. Some female-headed
families are singles who move out of their
family household to pursue a career in urban
areas; others are families headed by women
who continue to live with their retired par-
ents, or who are temporarily separated from
their husbands due to work, disability, or
unemployment. Female headship has also
become an urban phenomenon because
the urban centers offer more employment
opportunities for women (see Miralao 1992,
90). In general, female-headed families earn
an average annual income of about 230,000
pesos (US$5750), which is higher than that
of male-headed families, which have an
average annual income of 200,000 pesos
(US$5000). However, female-headed families
in the bottom 30 percent income group have
lower educational attainment and income
than their male counterparts, and work as
laborers and unskilled workers such as mar-
ket vendors and domestic helpers. On the
other hand, female-headed families in the
upper 70 percent income group have higher
income and educational attainment than
male-headed families in this income group
and are more likely to be managers, super-
visors, managing proprietors, government
officials, or professionals (National Statistics
Office 2011).
SEE ALSO: Family Structure; Kinship; Migrant
Worker Families
REFERENCES
Castillo, Gelia. 1979. Beyond Manila: Philippine
Rural Problems in Perspective. Ottawa: Interna-
tional Development Research Center.
Jocano, F. Landa. 1995. “Filipino Family Values.”
In The Filipino Family: A Spectrum of Views and
Issues, edited by Aurora E. Perez, pp. 1–11. Que-
zon City, Philippines: University of the Philip-
pines Office of Research Coordination.
Medina, Belen. 2001. The Filipino Family, 2nd
ed. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the
Philippines Press.

Miralao, Virginia. 1992. “Female-Headed House-
holds in the Philippines.” Philippine Sociological
Review, 40(1–4): 46–56.
Morada, Hector B., and Monina V. Gregorio. 1983.
“Household Structure Variation and Urbaniza-
tion in the Philippines.” Philippine Statistician,
23: 15–44.
National Statistics Office (Philippines). 2011.
“Female-Headed Families Have More Income
than Male-Headed Families.” Accessed October
23, 2013. http://www.census.gov.ph/old/data/
sectordata/factsheets/factsheet_2009FIES.pdf.
National Statistics Office (Philippines). 2012a.
“Household Population of the Philippines
Reaches 92.1 Million.” August 30. Accessed
April 27, 2015. http://web0.psa.gov.ph/content/
household-population-philippines-reaches-
921-million.
National Statistics Office (Philippines). 2012b.
“Women in Poor Households are Less Likely
to Practice Family Planning (Results from the
2011 Family Health Survey).” June 18. Accessed
October 23, 2013 http://www.census.gov.ph/
content/women-poor-households-are-less-
likely-practice-family-planning-results-2011-
family-health.
National Statistics Office (Philippines). 2012c.
“Domestic and International Migrants in
the Philippines.” November 15. Accessed
October 20, 2013. http://census.gov.ph/content/
domestic-and-international-migrants-
philippines-results-2010-census.
PHILIPPIN ES, FAM I LIES IN 5
National Statistics Office (Philippines). 2013.
“Total Number of OFWs is Estimated at 2.2
Million (Results from the 2012 Survey on
Overseas Filipinos).” July 11. Accessed April
27, 2015. http://census.gov.ph/content/total-
number-ofws-estimated-22-million-results-
2012-survey-overseas-filipinos.
National Statistics Office (Philippines) and ICF
Macro. 2009. National Demographic and
Health Survey 2008. Accessed April 27, 2015.
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR224/
FR224.pdf.
Nelson, Gloria Luz, and Rechel Guino. 2001. “Fam-
ilies in Distress.” Philippine Studies Quarterly,
49(4): 540–59.
Parreñas, Rhacel. 2005. “Long Distance Inti-
macy: Class, Gender and Intergenerational
Relations between Mothers and Children in
Filipino Transnational Families.” Global Net-
works, 5(4): 317–36. DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0374.
2005.00122.x.
Philippine Commission on Women. 2013. “Pop-
ulation, Families and Households.” April 19.
Accessed October 20, 2013. http://www.pcw.
gov.ph/statistics/201304/population-families-
and-household-statistics.
Suazo, Ruby. 2010. “Reinventing the Filipino’s Ori-
entation towards the Family: A Project to Gen-
uine National Development.” USC Graduate
Journal, 26(2): 221–38.