Introduction

In the Philippines, the legal framework governing relationships between couples is primarily anchored in the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended). This code distinguishes sharply between formal marriage and informal cohabitation, commonly referred to as common-law partnerships or "live-in" relationships. While marriage confers a structured set of rights and obligations, particularly in property relations, common-law partnerships operate under more limited and conditional rules. This article explores the key differences in property regimes, legal rights, and implications for couples, drawing from relevant provisions of the Family Code, jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, and related laws such as the Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code.

The discussion is crucial for understanding how these relationships affect asset division, inheritance, support obligations, and other entitlements. Marriage is viewed as a social institution protected by the state, whereas common-law partnerships lack the same level of institutional recognition, leading to disparities in legal protections.

Property Relations in Marriage

Marriage in the Philippines establishes a formal union that automatically triggers a property regime unless otherwise stipulated. The default system is the Absolute Community of Property (ACP) under Articles 75 to 85 of the Family Code. Under ACP:

All properties owned by the spouses before marriage (except those excluded by law, such as personal properties or those acquired by gratuitous title) and those acquired during the marriage form a single community pool.
Properties are presumed to belong to the community unless proven otherwise.
Upon dissolution (annulment, legal separation, or death), the community property is divided equally between the spouses or their heirs, after deducting debts and obligations.
Exclusions include properties acquired before marriage by either spouse with exclusive funds, properties for personal use (e.g., clothing, jewelry), and fruits from exclusive properties.

Couples may opt for alternative regimes through a marriage settlement (prenuptial agreement), which must be executed before the marriage and registered if it involves real property:

Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) (Articles 106-126): Properties owned before marriage remain separate. Only gains or income from separate properties and properties acquired during marriage through joint efforts are shared equally upon dissolution.
Complete Separation of Property (Article 143): Each spouse retains full ownership and control over their properties, with no sharing of assets. This can be agreed upon prenuptially or judicially during marriage for valid reasons like mismanagement.

In marriage, property relations emphasize equality and joint administration. Spouses have mutual rights to manage community or conjugal property, but certain acts (e.g., alienation of real property) require consent from both. Jurisprudence, such as in Mallilin v. Jamesolamin (G.R. No. 192685, 2011), underscores that properties acquired during marriage are presumptively community-owned, shifting the burden of proof to the claiming spouse.

Property Relations in Common-Law Partnerships

Common-law partnerships, or cohabitation without marriage, do not enjoy the automatic property regimes of marriage. Instead, they are governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, which provide conditional co-ownership based on the circumstances of the relationship.

Article 147: Cohabitation Without Legal Impediment: This applies when the partners are capacitated to marry each other (i.e., no existing marriage or other impediments) and live exclusively as husband and wife.
- Properties acquired through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in equal shares, regardless of whose name they are registered under.
- Wages and salaries earned by either party during cohabitation are co-owned equally.
- If one party is unemployed or homemaking, their efforts in managing the household are considered equivalent to financial contribution.
- Upon separation, properties are partitioned equally, similar to ACP, but only for those proven to be jointly acquired. Exclusive properties remain with the owner.
- The family home, if constituted during cohabitation, is protected similarly to married couples, preventing unilateral disposition.
Article 148: Cohabitation With Legal Impediment: This covers situations where at least one partner has an impediment to marriage (e.g., one is already married, or there is a significant age difference violating laws).
- Co-ownership applies only to properties acquired through proven actual joint contribution.
- Shares are proportional to each party's contribution, and there is no presumption of equality.
- Wages and salaries are not automatically shared; they remain exclusive unless contributed to a common fund.
- This regime is stricter to discourage relationships that violate public policy, such as adulterous affairs.

Supreme Court rulings, like Valdes v. RTC (G.R. No. 122749, 1996), clarify that without proof of joint effort, properties remain separate. In Maxey v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-45870, 1984), the Court emphasized that mere cohabitation does not create a presumption of co-ownership; evidence of contribution is required. Common-law partners can enter into contracts or agreements to govern their properties, but these lack the enforceability of marital settlements unless notarized or judicially approved.

Legal Rights in Marriage

Marriage grants extensive legal rights that protect both spouses and their offspring:

Support and Maintenance: Spouses are obligated to support each other and their common children (Article 194). This includes financial, emotional, and moral support, enforceable through courts.
Inheritance: Spouses are compulsory heirs (Article 887, Civil Code). A surviving spouse inherits a portion of the estate, even without a will, and has usufruct rights over the family home.
Parental Authority: Joint over legitimate children (Article 211).
Fidelity and Cohabitation: Legal duties include mutual fidelity, living together, and rendering mutual help (Article 68). Violations can lead to legal separation or annulment.
Name and Status: The wife may use the husband's surname (Article 370), and the marriage certificate provides proof of status for benefits like insurance, pensions, and visas.
Protection Against Violence: Enhanced under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Law), covering economic abuse.
Tax and Benefits: Joint filing options and exemptions under the Tax Code.

In cases of separation, courts can order support pendente lite and divide properties fairly.

Legal Rights in Common-Law Partnerships

Rights in common-law setups are more limited and contingent:

Support: No automatic spousal support. However, under Article 147, partners may claim support if they cohabited as husband and wife. Children are entitled to support regardless (Article 195).
Inheritance: No automatic succession rights between partners. They can only inherit via a will, subject to legitime rules for legitimate children. Under Article 147, the surviving partner may claim a share in jointly owned properties.
Parental Authority: Joint over acknowledged children, who are considered legitimate if born during cohabitation under Article 147 (Republic Act No. 9255 amended the Family Code to allow illegitimate children to use the father's surname upon acknowledgment).
Fidelity and Cohabitation: No legal enforcement; infidelity may end the relationship but doesn't trigger legal remedies like in marriage.
Name and Status: No right to use the partner's surname; the relationship isn't officially recognized for most benefits, though some government agencies (e.g., SSS, PhilHealth) allow designation as beneficiaries.
Protection Against Violence: Covered by RA 9262 if the relationship qualifies as "intimate," but proving status can be challenging.
Children’s Rights: Children born in Article 147 cohabitation are legitimate, with full rights. In Article 148, they are illegitimate but can be legitimated through subsequent marriage.

Jurisprudence, such as Juaniza v. Jose (G.R. No. L-50127-28, 1979), highlights that common-law partners must rely on ordinary contract law for disputes, lacking the presumptions afforded to married couples.

Key Comparisons and Implications

Aspect	Marriage (ACP/CPG)	Common-Law (Art. 147)	Common-Law (Art. 148)
Property Ownership	Automatic community or conjugal sharing	Equal co-ownership of jointly acquired	Proportional to proven contribution
Presumption	Properties during marriage are community	Equal shares if joint effort	No presumption; strict proof required
Support Obligation	Mutual and enforceable	Possible if cohabiting as spouses	Limited to children; none for partner
Inheritance	Compulsory heirs	Only via will or joint property share	Only via will
Dissolution	Court-ordered division	Partition of joint properties	Partition based on contribution
Children’s Status	Legitimate	Legitimate	Illegitimate (unless acknowledged)

Marriage provides stronger protections, promoting stability, but requires formalities like a license and ceremony. Common-law offers flexibility but risks inequality, especially for non-contributing partners (often women in homemaking roles). Tax implications differ: married couples enjoy deductions, while common-law partners file separately. In disputes, married couples access family courts; common-law relies on civil actions, which are lengthier.

Emerging issues include same-sex partnerships, recognized post-Obergefell influences but not formalized in the Philippines, falling under Article 147 if no impediment. The proposed Divorce Bill (if enacted) would affect only marriages, leaving common-law unchanged.

Conclusion

The Philippine legal system favors marriage for its comprehensive safeguards in property and rights, reflecting cultural and constitutional emphasis on family. Common-law partnerships, while common, expose partners to vulnerabilities due to evidentiary burdens and limited entitlements. Couples should consider formalizing their union for security, especially with assets or children involved. Understanding these distinctions aids in informed decision-making and dispute resolution.