I. Introduction
In the Philippines, many couples live together without getting married, and a very large number of women (and some men) are stay-at-home parents who do unpaid domestic and care work. When relationships break down or when a partner dies, the questions usually sound like:
- “May karapatan ba ako sa bahay kahit sa kanya lang nakapangalan?”
- “Wala akong trabaho, stay-at-home mom lang ako—may share ba ako sa mga naipundar namin?”
- “Live-in lang kami, hindi kasal. May habol ba ako sa property?”
Philippine law actually has fairly detailed rules on these issues—but they’re scattered across the Family Code, Civil Code, Constitution, and special laws. This article pulls them together, focusing on:
- Unmarried partners (live-in relationships)
- Stay-at-home mothers, whether married or not
This is general legal information in the Philippine context and not a substitute for advice from a lawyer on a specific case.
II. Legal Framework: No “Common-Law Marriage”
First key point: there is no “common-law marriage” in the Philippines.
Cohabiting for many years does not automatically make you legally married, and it does not automatically give you the same rights as a spouse. Your rights over property will depend on:
- Are you legally married or not?
- If not married, were you both free to marry each other (no legal impediments)?
- Who actually contributed to the property—and how can this be proven?
- What type of relationship exists (valid marriage, void marriage, adulterous, bigamous, etc.)?
The main legal sources are:
- Family Code of the Philippines – property relations of spouses and of unions in fact (Articles 75 onward, 96, 124, 147, 148, etc.)
- Civil Code – general rules on co-ownership (Articles 484 onward), contracts, obligations, unjust enrichment
- Constitution – provisions on equality of men and women, and foreign ownership of land
- Special laws – e.g., RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC), which covers economic abuse and can affect possession and use of property
III. Property Rights of Stay-at-Home Mothers Who Are Married
If there is a valid marriage, the property regime is governed by the Family Code. Even if the wife is a stay-at-home mother with no income of her own, she is not “walang karapatan sa property.”
A. Property Regimes in Marriage
For marriages celebrated after August 3, 1988 (effectivity of the Family Code), and without a valid prenuptial agreement, the default system is:
- Absolute Community of Property (ACP) – Almost all property owned by either spouse at the time of marriage and acquired thereafter becomes community property, except for specific exclusions (e.g., property acquired by gratuitous title with stipulation that it is exclusive, personal effects, property for personal use, etc.).
For some marriages under old law, or where there was a valid marriage settlement, you may instead find:
- Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) – Each spouse retains ownership of property owned before the marriage; only the fruits and acquisitions during marriage are conjugal.
But in both systems, the stay-at-home spouse is a co-owner of the community or conjugal property. Her lack of income does not reduce her share.
B. Ownership and Shares
- In ACP – The default rule is that both spouses own the community property in equal, undivided shares.
- In CPG – Upon liquidation, after paying obligations, each spouse is generally entitled to one-half of the net gains.
It does not matter that:
- Titles are under the husband’s name only;
- The husband is the sole breadwinner; or
- The wife did not earn any income and “only” took care of the home.
The law recognizes that managing the household and caring for children is a contribution to the acquisition and preservation of family property.
C. Administration and Disposition
Under the Family Code:
- Both spouses are joint administrators of community or conjugal property.
- As a rule, the consent of both is required to sell, mortgage, or encumber community property and the family home.
- If one spouse sells community property without the written consent of the other, that transaction may be void or voidable and can be challenged in court within specific periods.
This is crucial for stay-at-home mothers: you may have power to challenge transactions that dispose of community property without your consent.
D. The Family Home
The family home (the dwelling where the family actually resides and the land on which it is situated) has special protection:
- It is generally exempt from execution by creditors, with some exceptions.
- It forms part of the community or conjugal property if acquired during the marriage, unless proven otherwise.
- Disposition or encumbrance usually requires both spouses’ consent.
Even if the mother is not on the title, as a spouse she normally has a real interest and protection regarding the family home.
E. Upon Separation, Annulment, or Death
If the marriage is annulled, declared void, or dissolved by death:
- The community or conjugal property is liquidated, and the stay-at-home spouse is entitled to her share (often one-half, subject to the specifics of the regime and liabilities).
- The remaining estate of the deceased spouse is then distributed to heirs, including the surviving spouse and children, according to the rules on succession.
So a stay-at-home, legally married mother has strong property and inheritance rights under the Family Code, even without her own income.
IV. Unmarried Partners: Property Rights in Live-In Relationships
For unmarried cohabiting couples, the key provisions are Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. The law calls them “unions in fact” (informal unions), not marriages.
A. Article 147: Both Free to Marry Each Other
Article 147 applies where:
- A man and a woman live together as husband and wife;
- They are not married to each other;
- They are not disqualified from marrying each other (i.e., both are single, widowed, or annulled, and not closely related, etc.).
In these unions:
- Wages and salaries of both, and
- Property acquired through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry
are presumed to be co-owned by them in proportion to their contributions.
In the absence of proof, their shares are presumed equal.
The law also expressly recognizes that the care and maintenance of the family and the household by either party is a contribution to the co-ownership.
This is very important for stay-at-home mothers in live-in relationships.
Practical consequences:
If you are a stay-at-home mother living with a partner to whom you could legally marry (both single, for example), property acquired during cohabitation is presumed co-owned, even if:
- Only your partner has an income;
- Properties are titled only in his name; or
- You have no receipts showing monetary contribution.
Your household work and child care are treated as contributions, which ground your co-ownership share.
Upon breakup:
- Either partner can file an action for partition and accounting of the properties acquired during the union.
- After paying debts and obligations, the remaining properties are divided according to contributions, presumed equal if not proven otherwise.
Upon death of one partner:
- The surviving partner may claim his/her co-owner share on properties covered by Article 147.
- The remaining share of the deceased goes to his/her heirs (children, parents, etc.) under succession.
- The surviving partner is not a “spouse” for purposes of legitime (compulsory share in inheritance), but may still assert rights as co-owner.
B. Article 148: Couples with Legal Impediments (Adulterous, Bigamous, Void Marriages, etc.)
Article 148 covers unions where:
- There is some impediment to marry (one or both are married to someone else, or the relationship is adulterous, concubinage, etc.); or
- The cohabitation is between parties who are disqualified under law (e.g., incestuous relationships).
In these cases:
- Only property acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry is co-owned.
- No presumption of equal sharing arising from household work exists; the law is stricter.
- Each partner’s share is in proportion to his/her proven contribution. If proof is lacking, shares are presumed equal only with respect to proven joint contributions, not all properties of one partner.
If one partner is already married to someone else, additional consequences:
- The share of the spouse in the co-owned property may be forfeited in favor of the legitimate spouse and children in certain cases (especially when bad faith and criminal conduct such as concubinage are established).
- The “kabit” does not enjoy the same protections as a legitimate spouse and may even lose expected benefits due to the illicit nature of the relationship.
For a stay-at-home mother who is in a relationship with someone already married, Article 148 is far less protective:
- Pure household work is not clearly recognized as contribution for co-ownership (unlike Article 147).
- You generally need proof of actual joint contribution, such as paying part of the purchase price, building a house from your own funds, etc.
- Courts are cautious about rewarding arrangements that undermine the legally existing marriage.
V. Stay-at-Home Mothers Who Are Unmarried Partners
Putting the above together:
A. If Both Partners Were Free to Marry (Article 147 Scenario)
If you are:
- a stay-at-home mother,
- living with a partner,
- both originally single (or otherwise legally capacitated to marry), and
- your relationship is not incestuous or otherwise prohibited,
then Article 147 likely applies:
- Property acquired during the union through either partner’s wages, salaries, or joint efforts is presumptively co-owned.
- Your sacrificing paid work to stay at home and care for children is counted as contribution to the acquisition and preservation of property, even without cash receipts.
- Upon separation or death, you have a co-owner’s right to demand partition and receive your share (presumed equal unless proven otherwise).
However:
- You do not acquire the status of a “spouse” for other purposes (e.g., legitime as an heir).
- You have no automatic right to support as a spouse (though your children do have rights to support from their father).
- Benefits tied strictly to marriage (SSS/GSIS survivorship as “legal spouse,” some PhilHealth coverage rules, etc.) may not be available to you as a live-in partner, depending on agency rules and recognition systems.
B. If One Partner Is Married to Someone Else (Article 148 Scenario)
If you are a stay-at-home partner and your boyfriend/partner is already married to another person, you are in the Article 148 zone:
- You have no guarantee that household work will be treated like monetary contribution.
- You usually have to prove actual joint contribution to acquisition of specific properties.
- Even if you prove some contribution, your partner’s share might be forfeited in favor of the legitimate family in certain situations.
This is a legally and emotionally risky position for a stay-at-home parent.
VI. Property Rights as a Mother, Regardless of Marital Status
Regardless of whether you are a spouse or a mere partner, as a mother, you have certain rights which indirectly protect economic interests.
A. Support for Children
The father of the child—whether or not you are married to him—has a legal obligation to provide support to his child, which includes:
- Food
- Clothing
- Education
- Medical care
- Transportation
- Other needs, in keeping with the family’s social and financial standing
This obligation exists independently of whether you are married or living together. For unmarried mothers:
- You can file cases to compel the father to give support, but you may need to establish filiation (father–child relationship), for example through birth certificate, admission, DNA, etc.
- Support is for the child, not for you as a partner—but of course it helps the household.
B. Parental Authority and Property for Children
If property is acquired in the child’s name (e.g., donated by grandparents, bought in trust, inherited), you as father/mother act as legal administrators of your minor child’s property, subject to strict obligations. The property belongs to the child, not to the parents.
This can sometimes be a strategy to secure assets for children in unstable relationships, but must be done carefully with proper documentation.
VII. Co-Ownership, Evidence, and Practical Issues
Whether the relationship is married or unmarried, evidence is everything when disputes arise.
A. Co-Ownership Basics (Civil Code)
The Civil Code provides that:
- Co-owners are presumed to have equal shares, unless the contrary is proved.
- Each co-owner can use the property, but without prejudice to the interest of the others.
- Any co-owner may demand partition of the property, unless partition is prohibited by law or agreement.
In Article 147 situations, the Family Code adds the presumption of equal contributions in the absence of proof to the contrary.
B. Evidence of Contributions
For unmarried partners trying to prove or defend property rights, especially stay-at-home mothers, helpful evidence includes:
- Receipts, remittance records, payslips showing contributions to purchase price or construction;
- Proof that an asset was acquired during the union (dates of purchase compared with dates of cohabitation);
- Testimony that the property was bought as a joint project;
- Evidence of domestic and caregiving roles (to support presumption under Article 147).
Titles and registrations (e.g., land titles, vehicle registrations, bank accounts) are important but not conclusive. A property titled solely in one partner’s name can still be subject to claims of co-ownership, but this often requires litigation.
VIII. Violence, Economic Abuse, and Protection of Stay-at-Home Mothers
Under RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act), “violence” includes economic abuse, such as:
- Depriving the woman or her children of financial support;
- Controlling the woman’s participation in legitimate work or business;
- Disposing of common property or property owned by the woman without her consent;
- Preventing access to the family home or essential resources.
Protection orders under RA 9262 can:
- Grant the woman and her children exclusive or shared possession of the residence, regardless of ownership;
- Prohibit the respondent from disposing of property;
- Require the respondent to continue supporting the woman and/or children.
For stay-at-home mothers (married or not) who experience abuse, RA 9262 is a powerful tool that indirectly protects their housing and economic security, even when title or legal ownership is disputed or one-sided.
IX. Mixed Nationalities and Foreign Partners
A specific Philippine twist involves foreign partners:
- The Philippine Constitution prohibits foreigners from owning land, subject to very narrow exceptions.
- To get around this, some foreign nationals put land in the name of their Filipino partner (wife or live-in partner).
If you are a Filipina stay-at-home partner in such a relationship:
- The fact that the property is in your name means you are the legal owner according to the land records.
- However, the foreign partner might later claim that the property is held in trust or that there was some contrary arrangement, leading to complex litigation.
- Courts generally cannot validate arrangements that directly violate the constitutional prohibition, but the exact outcomes are nuanced.
For unmarried couples, this can get especially tricky when the relationship ends. The foreign partner may feel cheated; the Filipina partner may feel she merely followed the agreed arrangement. These disputes typically require detailed legal strategy.
X. Policy Gaps and Real-World Challenges
On paper, the law does recognize the contributions of stay-at-home mothers and gives certain property rights to unmarried partners (especially under Article 147). In practice, however:
- Many women are not on the title, do not keep documents, and are unaware of their rights.
- Litigation is expensive and slow, which can discourage claims.
- In Article 148 situations (where one partner is already married), the law deliberately provides less protection to avoid rewarding illicit relationships—leaving some stay-at-home partners very vulnerable.
- Social norms may pressure women to prioritize family over formalizing relationships or securing their own property interests.
There is ongoing policy and academic debate about:
- Whether protection for live-in partners should be expanded,
- How to better recognize unpaid care work, and
- Whether to adjust succession and property rules to reflect the reality that many Filipino families are formed outside formal marriage.
XI. Practical Takeaways
For stay-at-home mothers and unmarried partners in the Philippines, some practical legal conclusions are:
If you are legally married, you are generally a co-owner of community or conjugal property, even without income. Your consent is required for many dispositions, and you have strong rights upon separation or death.
If you are in a live-in relationship and both of you were free to marry each other, Article 147 likely applies:
- Property acquired during the union is presumed co-owned.
- Your household work is treated as contribution, supporting an equal share in many cases.
If your partner is married to someone else, Article 148 applies:
- Household work is not clearly recognized as contribution.
- You generally need to show actual financial or property contributions.
- The law strongly favors the legitimate spouse and children.
As a mother, your children have rights to support and inheritance from their father, even if you are not married, and property in your child’s name is protected.
Documentation matters:
- Keep copies of titles, receipts, remittances, and any written agreements.
- Understand what is in whose name, and when property was acquired.
In cases of abuse, RA 9262 offers immediate protection orders that can secure your continued residence and economic support even before the property issues are fully resolved.
This is a broad overview and cannot capture every nuance or recent case law, but it should give you a solid framework for understanding the property rights of unmarried partners and stay-at-home mothers in the Philippine legal context. For any real situation involving specific properties, relationships, or court cases, it’s crucial to consult a lawyer who can review documents and facts in detail.