Property and Asset Claims Between Common-Law Partners in the Philippines: Legal Remedies and VAWC Considerations

Introduction

In the Philippines, the concept of "common-law marriage" or partnerships—where couples cohabit without a formal marriage ceremony—does not confer the same legal status or protections as a valid marriage under the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended). Unlike in some jurisdictions where long-term cohabitation may create marital-like rights, Philippine law treats such relationships primarily through the lens of property co-ownership and contractual obligations, rather than familial bonds. This distinction becomes particularly relevant when partners separate and seek to divide shared properties and assets.

The legal framework governing these claims is rooted in Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, which differentiate between cohabiting couples based on their capacity to marry. Additionally, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Republic Act No. 9262, or VAWC) introduces considerations of economic abuse, providing protections that can intersect with property disputes, especially in cases involving women and children. This article explores the full scope of property and asset claims for common-law partners, including eligibility, evidentiary requirements, judicial remedies, and the role of VAWC in mitigating abuse during such claims.

Legal Framework for Property and Asset Rights

Philippine law does not recognize common-law marriage as a valid union. Instead, it categorizes cohabiting relationships into two main types under the Family Code:

Article 147: Cohabitation Without Legal Impediments

This provision applies to a man and a woman who are both capacitated to marry each other (i.e., no legal impediments such as age, prior undissolved marriage, or incapacity) and who live exclusively together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, or under a void marriage.

Property Regime: Properties acquired during cohabitation are presumed to be co-owned in equal shares if obtained through joint efforts, work, or industry. Wages and salaries are owned equally.
Presumption of Joint Acquisition: In the absence of contrary proof, assets acquired while living together are deemed the result of mutual contributions (financial or otherwise, including homemaking). This creates a regime akin to a conjugal partnership but limited to co-ownership rules under the New Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386).
Exceptions: Properties acquired before cohabitation or through exclusive efforts of one partner remain separate. Gifts, inheritances, or properties from third parties are not included unless proven otherwise.
Burden of Proof: The claiming partner must demonstrate joint contribution, but the presumption favors equality unless rebutted by clear evidence (e.g., titles in one name, receipts showing sole payment).

Article 148: Cohabitation With Legal Impediments

This applies when at least one partner has a legal impediment to marriage (e.g., one is already married, or the relationship is bigamous/adulterous).

Property Regime: Co-ownership is stricter and limited to properties where actual joint contributions (monetary or otherwise) can be proven. There is no presumption of equal shares; ownership is proportional to proven contributions.
No Presumption of Joint Effort: Unlike Article 147, assets are not automatically shared. For instance, if one partner buys property solely with their funds, it remains theirs.
Salaries and Wages: These remain separate property, unlike in Article 147.
Common Scenarios: This often arises in extramarital affairs or when one partner is separated but not legally divorced (divorce not being recognized in the Philippines except for Muslims or foreigners).

In both articles, the rules draw from Civil Code provisions on co-ownership (Articles 484–501), where co-owners have rights to use, fruits, and disposition, but disputes lead to partition.

Key Assets Typically Involved

Real Property: Land, houses, or condominiums titled in one or both names.
Personal Property: Vehicles, furniture, bank accounts, investments.
Business Interests: Shares in partnerships or corporations built during cohabitation.
Intangible Assets: Intellectual property, retirement benefits, or insurance proceeds if jointly contributed.
Debts: Jointly incurred obligations may be shared proportionally.

Properties must be acquired during cohabitation; pre-existing assets are generally excluded unless commingled.

Claims and Legal Remedies

When common-law partners separate, claims for property division are not automatic like in marital dissolutions (annulment or legal separation). Instead, partners must initiate civil actions, treating the relationship as a dissolved co-ownership or partnership.

Procedural Steps for Claims

Demand and Negotiation: Partners should first attempt amicable settlement, documenting demands for division to avoid estoppel claims later.
Filing a Complaint: Initiate a civil case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with jurisdiction over the property's location or parties' residence. Actions include:
- Partition of Property (Civil Code, Art. 494): Requests judicial division or sale of co-owned assets, with proceeds divided.
- Accounting and Liquidation: If under Article 147, similar to partnership dissolution (Civil Code, Arts. 1767–1867), requiring inventory, valuation, and settlement.
- Accion Publiciana or Reivindicatoria: For recovery of possession or ownership if one partner excludes the other.
- Unjust Enrichment (Quasi-Contract): If no co-ownership proven, claim under Civil Code Art. 22 for reimbursement of contributions without legal basis.
Evidence Required:
- Deeds, titles, receipts, bank statements proving acquisition and contributions.
- Witness testimonies on cohabitation and joint efforts (e.g., homemaking as non-monetary contribution under Art. 147).
- For Art. 148, strict proof of actual contribution (e.g., checks, transfers).
- No need for proof of marriage; cohabitation itself suffices if exclusive and as "husband and wife."
Court Proceedings:
- Pre-trial for mediation; many cases settle here.
- Trial involves valuation by appraisers; court may order sale if physical division is impractical.
- Appeals to Court of Appeals, then Supreme Court.
Prescription Periods: Actions prescribe after 10 years for written contracts or 30 years for real property recovery (Civil Code Arts. 1141–1155), starting from separation or demand.
Special Considerations for Children: If the couple has children, property claims may intertwine with support obligations under the Family Code (Art. 195), prioritizing children's welfare.

Limitations and Challenges

No Absolute Divorce: Since divorce isn't available, if one partner is married to someone else, claims under Art. 148 are complicated by potential criminal liability (adultery/concubinage under Revised Penal Code).
Tax Implications: Division may trigger capital gains tax or donor's tax if transfers are deemed gifts.
Foreign Elements: If one partner is foreign, Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention) or Hague Conventions may apply for enforcement.
Same-Sex Partners: While same-sex marriage isn't recognized, co-ownership rules apply analogously, but VAWC protections are gendered (for women).

Integration of VAWC Considerations

Republic Act No. 9262 (VAWC) addresses physical, sexual, psychological, and economic violence against women and children. It extends to common-law relationships if involving a "dating or sexual relationship" or a common child (Sec. 3).

Economic Abuse in Property Contexts

Economic abuse includes:

Depriving the woman of financial support or property access.
Controlling or destroying joint assets.
Withholding entitled support for children.

In property claims:

Protection Orders: A woman can seek a Barangay Protection Order (BPO), Temporary Protection Order (TPO), or Permanent Protection Order (PPO) from Family Courts or RTCs. These may:
- Order the abuser to vacate shared property.
- Provide temporary support from joint assets.
- Prohibit disposal of properties during proceedings.
Criminal Liability: Economic abuse is punishable by imprisonment (1 month to 12 years) and fines (Php 100,000–300,000). It can be filed alongside property claims.
Civil Remedies Under VAWC: Damages for moral/exemplary harm; custody and support for children.
Intersection with Property Division: VAWC can halt partition if abuse is alleged, prioritizing safety. Courts may award disproportionate shares to the victim or order restitution.
Evidentiary Link: Proof of cohabitation and abuse (e.g., affidavits, photos, financial records) strengthens claims. VAWC cases have a lower evidence threshold (preponderance) than criminal standards.

Challenges in VAWC Application

Gender-Specific: Primarily protects women; men in abusive situations rely on general laws (e.g., Revised Penal Code for threats).
Common Child Requirement: If no child and no ongoing relationship, VAWC may not apply, reverting to pure civil claims.
Reconciliation: VAWC encourages mediation but prohibits it if violence persists.

Relevant Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court decisions illustrate these principles:

Maxey v. CA (1996): Emphasized proof of joint contribution under Art. 148; no presumption if impediment exists.
Mallilin v. Jamesolamin (2005): Homemaking counts as contribution under Art. 147, allowing equal shares.
Aguilar v. CA (2003): Limited Art. 148 to actual contributions, excluding presumptions.
Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan (2013): VAWC applies to economic control in cohabitation, even post-separation.
Garcia v. Drilon (2013): Upheld VAWC's constitutionality, affirming protections in intimate relationships.

These cases underscore that courts favor equitable division but require robust evidence, with VAWC providing an overlay for abuse victims.

Conclusion

Property and asset claims between common-law partners in the Philippines hinge on co-ownership principles under the Family Code, offering remedies through civil partition and accounting, but without the presumptions of marital regimes. VAWC adds a critical layer of protection against economic abuse, enabling swift interventions to safeguard women and children. Partners should document contributions meticulously and seek legal counsel early to navigate these complexities. Ultimately, while cohabitation offers flexibility, it lacks the security of marriage, highlighting the importance of formal unions or agreements (e.g., cohabitation contracts) to preempt disputes. For personalized advice, consulting a lawyer is essential, as outcomes depend on specific facts.