A Philippine legal article on what cohabitation does—and does not—create, including property rules, children’s status, inheritance, and practical consequences.

1) The “7-year common-law marriage” belief: what Philippine law actually says

There is no automatic marriage in the Philippines after living together for 7 years (or any number of years). Philippine law does not recognize “common-law marriage” as a marriage created by cohabitation alone. A man and a woman may live together for decades and still remain legally unmarried unless they comply with the legal requirements for marriage.

Marriage remains a formal legal status

Under the Family Code, marriage is a special contract requiring:

Essential requisites: legal capacity of the parties and consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer; and
Formal requisites: authority of the solemnizing officer, a valid marriage license (unless exempt), and a marriage ceremony where the parties declare they take each other as spouse.

Cohabitation does not substitute for these requisites. No length of cohabitation “converts” a live-in relationship into marriage.

2) What cohabitation can create: real legal effects (even without marriage)

Even if there is no common-law marriage, Philippine law still gives cohabiting couples significant legal consequences in several areas:

Property relations (Family Code Articles 147 and 148)
Children’s rights (support, parental authority rules, legitimacy/illegitimacy, inheritance)
Protection from abuse (especially RA 9262, which covers violence in dating/live-in relationships)
Certain benefits/claims (case- and rule-dependent; many benefits still prioritize the legal spouse)
Ability to marry without a license in a narrow situation (Family Code Article 34)

These consequences often matter more than the number of years lived together.

3) The most common source of confusion: Article 34 (cohabitation and the marriage license exemption)

Many people connect “7 years” to the idea that cohabitation creates marriage. In Philippine law, the relevant concept is not 7 years—it is at least 5 years under Family Code Article 34.

Article 34 in plain terms

A man and woman may marry without a marriage license if:

they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five (5) years, and
they have no legal impediment to marry each other, and
they execute an affidavit stating the fact of their cohabitation (and the solemnizing officer executes a certification as required by law).

Important: Article 34 does not mean they are already married. It only means they may validly marry without a license—but they still need a solemnizing officer and a marriage ceremony.

If one party is married to someone else

Then they have a legal impediment, Article 34 does not apply, and any attempted “license-free marriage” on that basis is legally risky (and can be void and may expose the parties to criminal liability depending on facts, e.g., bigamy for the married party).

4) Property rights of live-in partners (the heart of “rights after 7 years”)

Because there is no common-law marriage, the default “spousal property regimes” (absolute community or conjugal partnership) do not automatically apply. Instead, Articles 147 and 148 govern most unions without marriage.

Step one: Identify which rule applies (Article 147 or 148)

A) Article 147 — when both partners are capacitated to marry each other

Article 147 generally applies if:

both are of legal age,
neither is married to someone else,
there is no legal impediment (e.g., prohibited degrees), and
they live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without a valid marriage (or under a void marriage), while being otherwise capacitated to marry.

Key effects under Article 147

Wages and salaries earned during cohabitation are owned in equal shares.
Property acquired during cohabitation is generally presumed to be through their joint efforts and owned in equal shares (a form of co-ownership).
Contribution is not only money: care and maintenance of the family and household is treated as contribution.
Each keeps ownership of property acquired before cohabitation, and property acquired gratuitously (inheritance/donation) generally remains exclusive to the recipient.

Practical impact: If both were free to marry each other, the law can treat what they built during the relationship much closer to an equal-sharing model—especially when evidence is incomplete, because Article 147 contains helpful presumptions.

B) Article 148 — when one or both partners are NOT capacitated to marry (e.g., one is married)

Article 148 generally applies if:

one or both parties have an impediment (most commonly: one party is legally married to another person), or
the union is otherwise not the kind covered by Article 147.

Key effects under Article 148

There is no automatic equal sharing.
Only properties acquired through the actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are co-owned, in proportion to proven contributions.
If one party is validly married to someone else, the law can treat the married person’s share in certain property as belonging to the property regime of the valid marriage (a major practical consequence in disputes with the legal spouse).

Practical impact: If the relationship is adulterous/bigamous in nature (one party married), the live-in partner’s “property rights” are typically narrower and more proof-dependent.

5) What counts as “property acquired during cohabitation”

Under both rules, disputes usually focus on what was acquired, when, and how.

Typical assets that become disputed

House and lot (especially if titled in one name)
Condominiums, land, vehicles
Business interests, shares, equipment
Bank accounts and investments
Household furnishings with significant value
Improvements on property owned by one partner or by a third person

Core evidence issues

Because many couples do not document contributions, courts look at:

Titles/registrations (not conclusive, but important)
Receipts, bank transfers, loan documents
Employment records/income capacity
Proof of who paid amortizations
Proof of who managed household and family (especially relevant under Article 147)
Witness testimony and admissions (messages, written statements)

A frequent misconception: “It’s in my name, so it’s mine.”

Title is powerful evidence, but under Article 147, the other partner may still prove co-ownership and claim an equal share of property acquired during the union. Under Article 148, the other partner can still claim a share—but must typically prove actual contribution more concretely.

6) Debts and liabilities in a live-in relationship

Unlike marriage, cohabitation does not automatically create broad spousal liability rules. The general approach is:

Personal debts remain personal unless the other partner co-signed, guaranteed, or the debt is clearly tied to jointly owned property or a jointly operated business.
For jointly acquired property financed by loans, the liability often tracks the contract: who signed the loan, who is the borrower, who guaranteed.
In partition/accounting disputes, courts can consider reimbursements where one partner paid more than their share for common property.

7) What happens when the couple separates

There is no “annulment” or “legal separation” for unmarried partners. Separation is legally simple as a relationship status—but complex as to property and children.

Property: partition and accounting

If there is co-owned property, either partner may pursue:

Judicial partition (to divide co-ownership), and/or
Accounting (to settle contributions, reimbursements, fruits/income, and expenses)

If the property is titled in one name, the other partner typically needs to establish co-ownership first (Article 147 presumption helps; Article 148 requires clearer proof).

Children: custody, support, visitation

Children’s rights do not depend on whether the parents are married. Courts will focus on:

best interests of the child,
parental fitness, and
statutory rules (including the “tender years” presumption commonly favoring the mother for children under 7, subject to exceptions).

8) Children of live-in partners: legitimacy, surname, custody, support

8.1 Legitimacy vs illegitimacy

In general:

A child conceived or born outside a valid marriage is illegitimate.
There are narrow exceptions in the Family Code where children from certain void marriages may be treated as legitimate, but simple cohabitation without marriage usually results in illegitimate status.

8.2 Surname and recognition

An illegitimate child typically uses the mother’s surname.
If the father recognizes the child (and the requirements are met), the child may use the father’s surname under RA 9255 and related rules on acknowledgment.

8.3 Parental authority and custody

Parental authority over an illegitimate child generally belongs to the mother, but the father (especially if he has recognized the child) may seek visitation and, in rare cases and with strong justification, custody based on the child’s best interests.

8.4 Support

Both parents are obligated to support their child.
Support can be pursued judicially regardless of marital status, based on the child’s needs and the parent’s resources.

8.5 Legitimation by subsequent marriage (important when there is no impediment)

If the parents were not disqualified from marrying each other at the time of the child’s conception and the child’s birth, the child may be legitimated by the parents’ subsequent valid marriage, under the Family Code’s legitimation provisions. This can have major consequences for status and inheritance.

9) Inheritance and succession: the biggest “gap” for live-in partners

9.1 Live-in partners are not legal spouses

A surviving live-in partner is generally not an intestate heir the way a legal spouse is. If a partner dies without a will, the surviving partner usually does not inherit by intestacy.

9.2 What the surviving partner can claim

Even without inheritance rights, the surviving partner may still claim:

their share in co-owned property under Article 147 or 148; and
reimbursement claims tied to contributions.

This is a property claim against the estate, not “inheritance.”

9.3 Wills and the “free portion”

A partner can be provided for by will, but:

compulsory heirs (legitimate children, spouse, etc.) have protected legitimes; and
the live-in partner’s share typically comes from the free portion, which may be small depending on the family structure.

9.4 Special problems when the relationship is adulterous/bigamous

Where one party is married, transfers to the paramour can be challenged under Civil Code rules on void donations in certain illicit relationships and related disqualification doctrines. This often becomes a litigation flashpoint in estate disputes with the legal spouse and legitimate family.

10) Government and workplace benefits: “common-law spouse” is not a single universal category

Some institutions use “common-law partner” informally, but benefit entitlement depends on the specific law/rules of the agency or plan, and many systems prioritize:

the legal spouse, and/or
dependent children, and/or
specific proof requirements (cohabitation, dependency, lack of legal spouse, etc.)

Common patterns in practice (general guidance)

If there is a legal spouse, the legal spouse usually has the strongest claim.
A live-in partner’s claim, if recognized at all, often depends on showing the member is not legally married and that the partner is a true dependent under the benefit rules.
Private employers and insurance plans sometimes allow broader beneficiary designations, but disputes can still arise, especially when a legal spouse exists.

Because benefit rules are frequently updated by issuances and internal regulations, they should be checked against the governing instrument at the time of claim.

11) Legal protections against abuse: live-in partners are covered

Even without marriage, Philippine law provides protection in intimate relationships.

Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) — RA 9262

RA 9262 applies not only to legal spouses but also to women who are or were in:

a dating relationship, or
a sexual relationship, or
a relationship where they share a child, including live-in arrangements.

Remedies can include:

protection orders (barangay, temporary, permanent),
removal from residence in appropriate cases,
support and other reliefs recognized under the law.

This is one of the clearest areas where cohabitation carries strong legal consequences.

12) Criminal law risk when one party is married

When one party is legally married to another person, the live-in setup may trigger issues beyond property sharing:

Bigamy risk arises if the married party goes through a second marriage without the first being legally dissolved/declared void in the required manner.
Adultery/concubinage remain crimes under the Revised Penal Code, with specific elements and prosecution rules (including that cases generally require a complaint by the offended spouse and have strict requirements).

These issues often surface in property and custody disputes as leverage and can affect how courts view “good faith” and equitable claims.

13) Frequently asked questions (Philippine context)

“After 7 years, are we considered married?”

No. Cohabitation does not create marriage. Legal marriage requires compliance with the Family Code requisites.

“Do we have the same rights as husband and wife?”

Not as spouses. But property acquired during cohabitation can be governed by Articles 147 or 148, and children’s rights and VAWC protections apply.

“Who owns our house if only one name is on the title?”

Title matters, but it is not always decisive. Under Article 147, the other partner may prove co-ownership and claim equal share in property acquired during cohabitation. Under Article 148, the other partner generally needs to prove actual contributions.

“If one of us dies, does the other inherit automatically?”

Usually no, because a live-in partner is not a legal spouse for intestate succession. The surviving partner may still claim a share in co-owned property.

“Can we marry more easily because we lived together a long time?”

Living together for at least five years (not seven) may allow marriage without a license under Article 34, only if both are free of impediments and other legal requirements are met.

14) Key takeaways (the law’s “bottom line”)

No common-law marriage is created by 7 years (or any period) of cohabitation.
Cohabitation matters most for property under Article 147 (equal-share presumptions when both can marry) and Article 148 (proof-based sharing when impediments exist).
Children’s rights to support are strong regardless of parents’ marital status; legitimacy affects certain legal consequences (surname rules, inheritance shares, parental authority structure).
A surviving live-in partner generally has no intestate inheritance rights, but may claim a property share in co-owned assets.
Live-in relationships are covered by VAWC protections under RA 9262.
The “years lived together” are far less important than whether the couple was legally free to marry and how assets and children were legally documented.