Legal Cases and Remedies for Infidelity in Common‑Law Relationships

(Philippine Context)

1. Introduction

Filipino law does not treat a live‑in or “common‑law” union in quite the same way as a valid marriage, yet the State still protects partners—especially women—and their children from the emotional, economic and physical injuries that may flow from a partner’s sexual infidelity. This article gathers, in one place, every major statutory rule, criminal remedy, civil action, and landmark case that presently governs the topic.

2. What Counts as a Common‑Law Relationship?

Provision	Key Points
Family Code, art. 147 (both parties free to marry)	Cohabitation “as husband and wife” of at least 5 years creates a special co‑ownership over property acquired during the union; each owns half regardless of contribution.
Family Code, art. 148 (one or both parties not free to marry)	Property regime is still co‑ownership but each partner owns only what he or she proves was contributed; the share of the guilty spouse may be forfeited in favour of their common children.
R. A. 9262, §3(a) (“dating relationship”)	Covers live‑in partners regardless of length of cohabitation; crucial for criminal relief when infidelity inflicts violence against women and their children (VAWC).

Practical effect: You do not need 5 years of cohabitation to invoke the protection of R. A. 9262; a months‑old relationship can suffice.

3. Criminal Liability for Infidelity in Live‑In Unions

3.1 Penal Code Offences (when one partner is married)

Offence	Elements	Applicability to Common‑Law
Adultery (Art. 333)	Married woman has sexual relations with a man not her husband	Only if the woman in the live‑in union is married to someone else.
Concubinage (Art. 334)	Married man: (a) keeps a mistress in conjugal home, (b) cohabits elsewhere, or (c) has scandalous sexual intercourse	Only if the man in the live‑in union is already married.
Bigamy (Art. 349)	Contracting a second marriage before the first is dissolved	Arises when a married person marries the live‑in partner; mere cohabitation is not bigamy.

3.2 Violence Against Women and Children Act (R. A. 9262)

Section 5(i) punishes “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation, including marital infidelity” when committed against a woman or her child within a dating or common‑law relationship.

Penalty: Prisión correccional (6 months + 1 day – 6 years) + fines + mandatory counselling.
Covered acts: Keeping a mistress, flaunting extramarital affairs on social media, bringing the paramour to the family home, etc., if the conduct results in psychological violence (anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, loss of self‑worth) — proven through medical or psychological reports, diaries, witness testimony, or text messages.

4. Landmark Jurisprudence

Case	G.R. No. / Date	Doctrine or Holding
Garcia v. Drilon	179267, 25 Jun 2013	Upheld the constitutionality of R. A. 9262; infidelity that causes psychological violence is punishable even if parties are only live‑in partners.
Melgar v. People	193993, 05 Feb 2014	Conviction under §5(i) affirmed; prosecution need only show mental anguish, not physical injury.
Reyes v. People	215508, 11 Jan 2016	Live‑in male partner’s open extramarital affair sustained conviction; psychological evaluation plus wife’s testimony were sufficient evidence.
AAA v. BBB	212448, 11 Jan 2018	Reiterated that “dating relationship” under §3(a) includes common‑law cohabitation of any length.
People v. Abella (Concubinage)	125444‑45, 22 Aug 2000	Live‑in arrangement with a married man constituted concubinage; concubine (mistress) is a co‑accused.
Carating v. CA	82475, 13 Mar 1990	Clarified property division under art. 147 when live‑in partners separate after infidelity.

Trend: The Supreme Court uses R. A. 9262 to close the gap left by adultery/concubinage when the offended partner is not legally married.

5. Civil Remedies Outside the Penal System

Damages for “Breach of Promise & Abuse of Rights”
- Civil Code arts. 19, 20, 21 allow moral and even exemplary damages for acts contra bonos mores, e.g., flaunting an affair that destroys a partner’s honour.
- Example: An abandoned common‑law wife was awarded ₱50,000 moral damages when the partner paraded his paramour (Alfonso v. Macaliboa, CA‑G.R. CV 93324, 2013).
Judicial Separation of Property / Accounting
- Either partner may sue to partition the co‑owned assets (arts. 147‑148) and recover exclusive property squandered on a paramour (doctrine of “forfeiture”).
Support for Children
- Infidelity •does not void filiation•; erring partner must still support common children (Family Code arts. 174‑176, 194‑203).
Torts Against the Paramour?
- Unlike some U.S. states, the Philippines does not recognise “alienation of affection.” Liability lies with the unfaithful partner, not the third person—unless the latter is married, in which case concubinage/adultery applies.

6. Administrative & Employment Consequences

Civil Service & PNP/AFP: “Disgraceful and immoral conduct” (CSC MC No. 19, s. 1999) includes cohabiting with a person other than one’s spouse; can result in dismissal.
Ground for Overseas Filipino Workers’ repatriation if employer cites breach of moral clauses.

7. Evidentiary Checklist for Victims

Relationship Proof
- Joint IDs, bills, mail, photos, barangay certification of cohabitation, affidavits of neighbours.
Infidelity Proof
- Screenshots of messages, hotel records, eyewitness accounts, social‑media posts, private‑investigator report.
Psychological Violence Proof
- Psychiatric evaluation, counselling notes, prescription for anti‑depressants, diary entries.
Property Records
- Titles, deeds of sale, bank statements to establish contributions under arts. 147‑148.

Tip: Barangay Protection Orders (BPO) may be issued the same day; bring initial evidence when filing.

8. Procedure to File a R. A. 9262 Case

Option A – Barangay
- File a complaint; mediation is suspended because VAWC is public in nature, but the Punong Barangay may issue a BPO (valid 15 days).
Option B – Police / NBI
- Execute a sworn statement; submit evidence. The Women & Children Protection Desk assists in obtaining medico‑legal certificates.
Prosecutor’s Office
- Filing of Information in court after inquest/preliminary investigation.
Court Protection Orders
- TPO (30 days) or PPO (extended) may be granted within 24 hours of application, even ex parte.
Trial & Sentencing
- RTC / FLC (designated as Family Court) hears the case; conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of psychological violence. Penalties may include counselling and mandatory protection orders.

9. Limits & Reform Proposals

Gender‑specific coverage: A male live‑in partner psychologically injured by an unfaithful female partner currently has no penal recourse under R. A. 9262 (bill proposals seek to adopt a gender‑neutral VAWC).
No crime for consensual sex between two single adults; criminal liability hinges on resulting violence or marriage status.
Pending Bills: House Bill 78 proposes criminalising “sexual infidelity” as a separate offence, regardless of marital status; still in committee as of July 2025.

10. Conclusion

Infidelity inside a common‑law relationship falls into a patchwork of Philippine legal rules:

If either partner is married, the Revised Penal Code (adultery/concubinage) may attach.
If both are legally free but cohabiting, the primary weapon is R. A. 9262, treating infidelity as psychological violence against women or children.
Civil avenues—damages, property partition, child support—supplement criminal action.
Recent jurisprudence (Garcia, Melgar, Reyes) confirms the judiciary’s willingness to punish infidelity‑driven mental anguish.

Until Congress enacts an explicit, gender‑neutral “infidelity offense,” live‑in partners must rely on these existing frameworks to vindicate their rights and protect their mental health, property and children.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For individualized guidance, consult a Philippine lawyer experienced in family and criminal law.