Common-Law Marriage (Live-in Relationships) in the Philippines

Money is [one of] the root[s] of all kinds of relationship problems, says an article at the Family Relationships site. In my modest years of law practice, I can say that among the most bitter confrontations (in and out of court) relate to property/money/inheritance issues between members of the family.

Common Law Marriage or Live-in Relationships in the Philippines

Under the Family Code of the Philippines, property matters between the husband and wife are set forth in relative detail, e.g., the forms and requisites of a marriage settlement or ante-nuptial agreement, donations by reason of marriage, the “default” property regime of absolute community of property (vis-a-vis separation of property, and conjugal partnership of gains), support for the spouse and the children, and the effects of legal separation and annulment of marriage on the spouses’ properties. I’m still trying to decide if I should further discuss any of these topics (also, the rules on succession/inheritance are treated in other laws/issuances, and may be discussed separately in other entries).

For this entry, allow me to focus on something that appears to be increasingly common nowadays — the “live-in” relationship, also called “common-law marriage“. This is governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, which reads:

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.

The Family Code (Art. 147) recognizes, and expressly governs the property relations in, the relationship where a man and a woman live exclusively with each other just like a husband and wife, but without the benefit of marriage (or when the marriage is void). It is required, however, that both must be capacitated, or has no legal impediment, to marry each other (for instance, couples under a “live-in” relationship will not be covered under this provision if one or both has a prior existing marriage). In this situation, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. As to the homemaker, or the one who cared for and maintained the family household, he/she is still considered to have jointly contributed to the acquisition of a property, even if he/she did not directly participate in the property’s acquisition.


How about if one or both partners are not capacitated to marry, as when one (or both) has an existing or prior marriage which has not been annulled/declared void? This is covered under Art. 148 of the Family Code, which reads:

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.

In other words, under Art. 148, only the properties acquired through their ACTUAL JOINT contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common (in proportion to their actual contributions). There is no presumption that properties were acquired through the partners’ joint effort. Please also note that if one has a prior marriage, his/her share shall be forfeited in favor of that previous marriage (as an aside, the children under the second relationship shall be considered as illegitimate).

So, as previously stated in this Forum, put your (first) house in order first. No need to rush; love is patient. It can wait. [See also Domestic Partnerships and Cohabitation Agreements in the Philippines]

Atty.Fred

234 thoughts on “Common-Law Marriage (Live-in Relationships) in the Philippines

  1. alexkekai

    my brother have a 4 years live-in partner without a child.Prior to this relationship both of them are married. Now he wants to end up the relationship with her.But the woman is threatening him.My brother is presently working in abroad he is coming back for vacation. According to the woman she will make a way that the immigration officer will hold him for the case she filed.My question is What cases to be filed by the woman to my brother?What my brother will suppose to do?

    Reply
  2. aiz

    Dear Atty,

    Can you please help me with this concern? Can a person name his live-in partner as his beneficiary for his insurance benefits and the like, in case of his death?..For instance, the person stated in his card/contract the name of his live-in partner, will the court honor this?..

    Thank you and hoping to hear from you soon.

    Reply
  3. ms.r

    i am 22, living with someone(british) else for 16 months now.. he wanted us to separate but i dont want to agree. is there anything i can do?.. he had been separated on his wife(filipina) since 2006. they are legally married.

    al i want to know is that, can i do anything or is there anything i can hold to to tell him that we can’t split even he likes. Honestly, i dont like us to be separated.

    please give me some dvice. thanks

    Reply
  4. liscatap

    hello atty!

    i am in a live in relationship. i am pregnant and i am currently employed. we could not have the marriage because of his prior marriage. would i be expelled from my work? if they will terminate me, is that not a violation for the magna carta for women?

    thanks a lot atty!
    Waiting for your response. please.. thanks

    Reply
  5. allanyzette

    Hi Atty. Fred!

    I know its a way out of your topic? but I would just like to seek your advise, if it is possible for me to marry my Fiancee here in Philippines even if he’s currently in Saudi Arabia for his work.His contract is 2 years, and the only way that he can bring me there is if we are officially married. Is there a way we can get married even if he’s there? thanks in advance…your response will be very much appreciated:)

    Reply
  6. charles009

    Good day Atty. I would just like to ask what if the unmarried couple with their child is living together with the man’s family? That is not “exclusively” living right? As per Common Law Marriage, the unmarried couple should be “exclusively” living together. Are they still governed by co-ownership?

    And what about if the man is working abroad and the woman and the child is living with his family are they still covered by co-ownership? Thanks in advanced

    Charles

    Reply
  7. lhen

    Good Day Atty,
    we are about to get a slot in a housing program but one of our requirements is to have a certificate of cohabitation, since we are not married, but we are planning to be wed by next year..
    how and where can we get the said certificate?
    thank you in advance..

    Reply
  8. chester_164

    gud day just want to ask about my live in partner,she working in japan for 8 years and we have 3 kids im the one to care my sons and daughter in short im a house husband and a businessman now we decided to seperate what is my right to our properties?all invest money is from her but im the one who manage everything..
    just want to know my rights pls help me tnx…

    Reply
  9. Wifey@33

    Hi Atty. Fred,

    My husband and I are separated (not legally though) more than 3 years now. He’s living with his concubine with their 2 kids in our previous apartment. Me and my kids stay in our conjugal home. We acquire a car during our marriage however he took it when he left us. He sold the car without my knowledge and bought a second hand car. Can I still consider the car conjugal property? do i have a right to that car even if it’s not under our name?

    In case he acquires debt (credit card debt, etc) will i be liable to pay even if we are already separated?

    Reply

Leave a 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.