Overview

In the Philippines, dating—or especially cohabiting—with someone who is still legally married can trigger criminal exposure, civil liability for damages, and significant financial/property risks, even if the married couple is “separated” in practice. The legal consequences depend heavily on (1) who is married (the man or the woman), (2) whether there is sexual intercourse or cohabitation, (3) how public the relationship is, and (4) whether the offended spouse files a case.

This article focuses on the common scenario: a single person dating or living with a married person (a “third party”), and what can happen under Philippine law.

1) A Key Starting Point: “Married” Means “Legally Married”

Under Philippine law, a person is treated as “married” until the marriage is legally ended or legally declared void, typically by:

Death of a spouse
Judicial declaration of nullity (void marriage)
Judicial annulment (voidable marriage)
Judicial recognition (in proper cases) of a foreign divorce that capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry, and the corresponding judicial process for the Filipino spouse to remarry under the Family Code framework

Important practical effect: A couple may be living separately, may have new partners, and may even have signed private agreements—but without a final court decree (and proper registration/entry), the marriage generally still exists for many legal consequences.

Legal separation (as a court decree) does not end the marriage. It authorizes spouses to live separately and affects property relations, but neither spouse is free to remarry, and sexual relations with a new partner can still create criminal exposure.

2) Criminal Liability Risks

A. Adultery (Revised Penal Code, Art. 333)

Who is primarily covered: a married woman who has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.

Who can be charged:

The married woman
The man (paramour) — if he knew she was married

Core act required: sexual intercourse. Mere “dating,” affection, or emotional intimacy—without proof of intercourse—does not satisfy the classic elements, though it may still have other legal consequences (civil damages, administrative discipline, etc.).

Key procedural feature: a “private crime.”

The case generally cannot proceed without a complaint filed by the offended spouse (typically the husband).
The complaint must usually include both guilty parties (the spouse and the paramour) if both are alive.
Pardon/condonation by the offended spouse (express or implied, depending on circumstances) can block or undermine prosecution in many situations, especially if it occurred before the filing.

Penalty (general): correctional imprisonment ranges (commonly described under prisión correccional ranges), plus the collateral consequences of a criminal case (arrest risk, bail, record, trial).

What this means for the third party: If you are dating a married woman, you can be criminally charged together with her if there is evidence of sexual intercourse and you knew she was married.

B. Concubinage (Revised Penal Code, Art. 334)

Who is primarily covered: a married man with a mistress under specific aggravated forms.

Concubinage is not simply “a married man who cheated.” It requires any of these typical modes:

Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling (the marital home), or
Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances, or
Cohabiting with the mistress in another place (living together as if spouses elsewhere)

Who can be charged:

The married man
The mistress/concubine (typically punished differently, historically via destierro-type penalties)

Also a “private crime.”

A complaint generally must be filed by the offended spouse (typically the wife).
The case generally includes both offenders if alive.
Similar issues on pardon/consent can arise.

Why cohabitation matters: If a married man and his partner live together (especially openly), that can fit the “cohabiting in another place” mode—often easier to prove than specific sexual acts, though proof is still required beyond reasonable doubt.

What this means for the third party: If you are dating a married man, mere dating may not automatically meet concubinage’s stricter modes—but living together is a high-risk fact pattern.

C. The “Caught in the Act” Provision: Exceptional Circumstances (Revised Penal Code, Art. 247)

Philippine law has a special provision reducing liability for a spouse who surprises the other spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another person and then kills or inflicts serious injuries immediately in the act or right after.

This does not legalize violence, but it can drastically affect criminal liability and is often cited as a real-world legal risk factor surrounding affairs. It also underscores how the law treats sexual infidelity as a serious marital wrong with specific legal consequences.

D. Bigamy Risks (Revised Penal Code, Art. 349) — If the Relationship Turns Into a “Marriage”

If the married partner attempts to marry you without the first marriage being legally dissolved or declared void, the married partner can face bigamy.

A recurring practical issue: a person may claim their first marriage was “void anyway.” Philippine bigamy jurisprudence has historically emphasized the need for a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting a subsequent marriage, even if the earlier marriage is alleged void. This creates risk for anyone relying on informal assurances like “void naman ’yan.”

E. If There Are Threats, Harassment, or Abuse: R.A. 9262 (VAWC) and Related Laws

The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (R.A. 9262) can apply in marital and intimate relationships and includes physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse. It is often invoked in conflicts arising from infidelity (e.g., economic abuse, harassment, threats, stalking-like behavior, coercion).

A crucial limitation in many scenarios: protection orders and liability under R.A. 9262 typically depend on the relationship between offender and victim (e.g., spouse, former spouse, dating relationship, sexual relationship, common child). In many cases, the legal wife’s direct R.A. 9262 case is against the husband, not the mistress, because the mistress does not have the qualifying intimate relationship with the legal wife. However, facts vary, and other civil/criminal laws may still apply depending on acts committed (threats, unjust vexation-like behavior, cyber harassment, etc.).

F. Special High-Stakes Situations

Some circumstances greatly increase exposure beyond adultery/concubinage:

If the partner is below 18 → child protection and sexual offense laws can apply.
If intimate images are shared → potential liability under privacy/voyeurism and cybercrime-related laws.
If money/property is diverted from the legal family → can aggravate civil claims and trigger separate disputes.

3) Civil Liability: Damages Claims Against the Third Party

Even when criminal prosecution is not pursued or fails, the offended spouse may sue for damages under the Civil Code (commonly invoking Articles 19, 20, 21, and 26, among others) based on:

Abuse of rights / acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy
Willful acts causing injury
Conduct that violates human dignity, family life, or peace of mind

Common forms of damages sought

Moral damages (for anguish, humiliation, emotional suffering)
Exemplary damages (in aggravated cases to set an example)
Attorney’s fees (in proper cases)

Key point: “Dating” can still matter in civil cases

Civil claims do not always require proof of sexual intercourse with the same strictness as adultery. Patterns of conduct—public humiliation, flaunting the relationship, social media posts, harassment, inducing the spouse to abandon family obligations—may be used to support a claim.

Injunction-type relief and “third party” complications

Offended spouses sometimes attempt to restrain a third party from continuing the relationship through protection orders or injunctions. Courts are generally cautious about orders that effectively police adult romantic relationships, but specific acts (harassment, threats, stalking behavior, workplace intrusion, defamation) can be restrained under appropriate legal bases.

4) Living Together: Property and Money Consequences

A. The married person’s property is usually entangled with the legal spouse

Depending on the date of marriage and applicable property regime:

Many marriages operate under Absolute Community of Property (ACP) (common under the Family Code), or
Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) (more common under older regimes / transitional situations)

Practical result: Money used by the married partner to support a new household, buy a car/condo, or fund a business may be alleged to be community/conjugal—meaning the legal spouse may later claim the property or sue to recover funds.

B. Donations, “gifts,” and transfers to a mistress/paramour can be legally vulnerable

Two major legal doctrines frequently collide with affairs:

Void donations between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage (Civil Code, Art. 739) Donations (including disguised gifts) between parties in an adulterous/concubinage relationship can be attacked as void.
Life insurance beneficiary disqualification (Civil Code, Art. 2012) A person disqualified from receiving donations under Art. 739 cannot be named as a life insurance beneficiary in that context.

Real-world examples of vulnerable transfers:

A condo titled in the third party’s name but paid by the married partner
Large “gifts” funded from the married couple’s resources
Insurance beneficiary designations favoring the third party

These situations often become litigation flashpoints when the legal spouse discovers the affair, when separation turns contentious, or upon death of the married partner.

C. Property rules between the married partner and the third party: Family Code Art. 148 (common)

When parties live together but are not legally capacitated to marry each other (e.g., because one is married), Article 148 of the Family Code typically governs property relations.

General approach under Art. 148 (in plain terms):

You do not automatically get “50-50” like spouses.
The co-ownership generally covers property acquired through actual joint contribution (money, property, industry), and shares are usually proportional to proven contributions.
Courts often scrutinize claims; documentation matters.

Bad faith and forfeiture concepts: If a party is in bad faith (commonly argued when the relationship continues with knowledge of a subsisting marriage), courts may apply forfeiture rules that can redirect the bad-faith party’s share to children or other beneficiaries under the Family Code’s framework. The exact outcome is fact-driven.

5) Children With a Married Partner: Status, Support, Custody, Inheritance

A. Illegitimate status (generally)

A child conceived/born when one parent is married to someone else is generally illegitimate under Philippine law.

B. Support

Illegitimate children are entitled to support from the parent. Support can be demanded judicially and can include education and medical needs, depending on circumstances.

C. Parental authority and custody

As a general rule, the mother has parental authority over an illegitimate child. The father typically has visitation rights subject to the child’s best interests and court orders when disputes arise.

D. Surname and recognition

Rules on the use of the father’s surname and recognition depend on acknowledgment and applicable statutes and regulations. Disputes over paternity and support often arise, especially if the married partner later denies the relationship.

E. Inheritance

Illegitimate children have inheritance rights from their parent, but their shares and relationships in succession law differ from legitimate children. This becomes especially contentious when the deceased parent is still legally married and has a legitimate family.

F. Legitimation is usually not available in adulterous-conception scenarios

Legitimation by subsequent marriage typically requires that the parents had no legal impediment to marry at the time of conception. If one parent was married then, legitimation is usually unavailable even if the parents later marry after an annulment/nullity. This keeps many children in these situations legally classified as illegitimate.

6) Administrative and Professional Consequences (Often Overlooked)

Even when criminal cases are not filed, a relationship with a married person can trigger administrative discipline in certain contexts, especially for:

Government employees (Civil Service rules and agency codes often penalize “disgraceful and immoral conduct”)
Uniformed services (PNP/AFP) with stricter conduct standards
Licensed professionals (where moral character requirements can be implicated)

These proceedings have different standards of proof and can proceed independently of criminal cases.

7) Evidence and Litigation Reality in Infidelity-Related Cases

Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt

Adultery: proof of sexual intercourse is central, though it may be proven by credible testimonial and circumstantial evidence in some cases.
Concubinage: proof of cohabitation, keeping in the conjugal dwelling, or scandalous circumstances is central.

Digital footprints matter

Messages, call logs, photos, hotel bookings, social media posts, and witness testimony frequently become evidence. The manner of obtaining evidence can also create separate legal issues (privacy violations, unlawful recordings, etc.), depending on the facts.

The offended spouse controls the trigger in private crimes

Because adultery and concubinage are classically treated as private crimes, they usually move forward only if the offended spouse files the complaint and complies with procedural requirements (including the inclusion of both accused where required).

8) Practical Legal Risk Map (By Scenario)

“We’re just dating; no sex; not living together.”

Lower criminal risk (adultery/concubinage hinge on intercourse/cohabitation modes)
Non-trivial civil risk if the relationship is public, humiliating, harassing, or disruptive to the legal family
Administrative risk may still exist (especially in government/service contexts)

“We have a sexual relationship, but don’t live together.”

High criminal risk if the married partner is a woman (adultery) and knowledge can be shown
Moderate to high criminal risk if the married partner is a man, depending on whether the concubinage modes can be established (e.g., scandalous circumstances)
Civil damages risk increases

“We live together.”

Very high concubinage risk if the married partner is a man (cohabitation mode)
High adultery risk if the married partner is a woman (intercourse likely inferred with supporting evidence)
Major property/financial exposure (Art. 148 claims, reconveyance disputes, void donations, insurance beneficiary challenges)
Higher likelihood of protective/legal actions due to visibility and conflict

Key Takeaways

In the Philippines, being “separated” socially does not end a marriage; legal status matters.
Dating a married person can create civil liability, and once sexual intercourse/cohabitation is provable, can create criminal exposure under adultery/concubinage frameworks.
Cohabitation significantly increases risk—especially for concubinage when the married partner is male.
Money and property in these relationships are legally fragile: community/conjugal claims, void donations, and insurance beneficiary challenges are common.
Children in these situations typically face illegitimacy rules, though they retain enforceable rights to support and inheritance from the parent under Philippine law.
Standards differ: a failed criminal case does not necessarily defeat a civil damages case, and administrative sanctions can arise independently.