Property regimes for unions without marriage
The Family Code, however, provides that acquisitions made by common law spouses are governed by the rules of co-ownership
More and more couples in the Philippines enter into live-in arrangements as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage in what are called common-law relationships.
In the course of these relationships, common law spouses are likely to acquire properties together which often become a source of conflict if and when they suddenly break up.
Since these common law spouses are not recognized as being legally married under our Family Code, their property relationship is not governed by any of the property regimes that govern the property relationship of legally married spouses such as absolute community property or conjugal partnership of property.
The Family Code, however, provides that acquisitions made by common law spouses are governed by the rules of co-ownership.
Under the Family Code, there are two types of unions without marriage, to wit: 1.) When a man and a woman with no legal impediment to marry live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is declared void; and, 2.) when they live together as husband and wife but are incapacitated to marry each other.
In the event of separation, the property regime under the first type of union without marriage is governed by Article 147 which provides that “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 course of these relationships, common law spouses are likely to acquire properties together which often become a source of conflict if and when they suddenly break up.
The provision covers the parties’ wages, salaries, and the properties acquired during their cohabitation which shall be owned by them in equal shares. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed that the properties acquired while the couple lived together were obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry. This is true even in cases where only one party to the union was earning and all properties acquired by the union were purchased exclusively with the earnings of that one party.
The other party who may not have contributed funds toward the acquisition of their properties is nonetheless considered as having contributed to the prosperity of the union through efforts exerted toward the care and maintenance of the family and the household.
Such efforts are effectively ascribed monetary value which are deemed to be the contribution of the non-earning party toward the union’s property acquisition. The latter is thereby entitled by law to a proportionate or equal share of the jointly acquired properties. In this scenario, neither of the partners can alienate their share to any of the properties they acquired without the consent of the other.
The property regime under the second type of union without marriage is governed by Article 148 which states that “(I)n 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.” This applies to unions between parties one or both whom have no capacity to marry or suffer under some legal impediment which prevents them from legally marrying each other.
Article 148 directs that the parties must provide proof of actual joint contribution of money, property or industry in the acquisition of the property before such may be regarded as owned by them in common or co-owned in proportion to their contribution.
Actual joint contribution is required, otherwise there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal sharing. Unlike in the first scenario, either of the parties may alienate or dispose of the properties owned in common without the consent of the other.
As more and more Filipino couples enter into common law relationships to test the waters before rushing into legal marriage, many of them unfortunately fall victim to “Walang forever.”
The emotions attending a break up tend to complicate the separation process more so when properties jointly acquired are involved. It would be wise for common law spouses to acquaint themselves with the abovementioned protections of the law to avoid or lessen complications when this happens.