1) Setting the baseline: cohabitation is not marriage in Philippine law

In the Philippines, living together (“live-in,” “common-law,” “asawa-asawa”) does not create a marriage. There is no “common-law marriage” that automatically gives spouses’ rights (e.g., rights of a legal spouse in inheritance, conjugal property, automatic decision-making).

Even so, Philippine law does recognize:

Property consequences of a man and woman cohabiting as husband and wife (Family Code, Articles 147 and 148), and
Parental rights and duties regarding children, including custody and support (Family Code provisions on parental authority, custody, and support; and the procedural rules for custody cases in Family Courts).

The practical result is:

Property division depends heavily on which legal category the relationship falls under (Art. 147 vs. Art. 148) and on proof of contributions.
Child custody depends heavily on the child’s legitimacy/illegitimacy, parental authority rules, and the child’s best interest.

2) Property division when an unmarried couple separates

2.1 The core framework: Family Code Articles 147 and 148

Philippine law uses two main regimes for property acquired during cohabitation between a man and a woman:

A) Article 147: Cohabitation where both are capable of marrying each other

Article 147 generally covers a man and a woman who:

are both legally capacitated to marry each other (no impediment such as a prior subsisting marriage, prohibited relationship, minority, etc.), and
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without a valid marriage (or under a void marriage), and
acquire property during the relationship.

Key effects under Article 147:

Wages and salaries earned during cohabitation are generally treated as owned in equal shares.
Property acquired during the union through their work or industry is treated as a form of co-ownership.
There is a strong presumption that property acquired while they lived together came from their joint efforts and is owned in equal shares, unless evidence shows otherwise.
A partner’s non-monetary contributions count. Work like caring for the household and family can be treated as a form of contribution to acquisition (the law explicitly recognizes this idea in Art. 147).

What Article 147 does not automatically do:

It does not make the couple “spouses.”
It does not automatically convert everything either person owns into “conjugal property.” Property owned before cohabitation, or acquired gratuitously (e.g., inheritance, certain donations), is generally treated as exclusive, unless mixed/converted in a way that changes ownership.

B) Article 148: Cohabitation where one or both are not capable of marrying each other, or the relationship does not meet Article 147

Article 148 generally applies when:

One or both partners had a legal impediment (commonly: one is still married to someone else), or
The relationship does not meet the “exclusive” and “capacitated to marry each other” requirements of Article 147.

Key effects under Article 148:

Only properties acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are held in common.
Ownership is generally in proportion to proven contributions (so evidence matters a lot).
Courts tend to be stricter here: a partner who claims a share usually must show actual contribution to the acquisition (financial or otherwise, depending on how the facts are proven).
Article 148 contains protective rules designed to avoid rewarding relationships that are legally problematic (e.g., involving a person already married) and can include forfeiture/accrual consequences in certain situations, especially where one party has an existing marriage/property regime that the law protects.

Practical difference between 147 and 148:

Art. 147 leans toward equal sharing with a strong presumption and recognition of homemaking.
Art. 148 leans toward “prove what you contributed” and may limit sharing to what can be traced to joint contributions.

2.2 What counts as “property acquired during cohabitation”?

Common categories that become dispute points:

(1) Real property (house, condo, land)

If acquired during cohabitation:
- Under Art. 147, it is commonly treated as co-owned (often presumed equal) unless rebutted.
- Under Art. 148, co-ownership is limited to what is proven to have been acquired through joint contribution, proportionate to contributions.
Title is not always the whole story: property may be titled in one name, but the other may claim a beneficial share depending on the applicable regime and proof.

(2) Vehicles, appliances, furniture, equipment

Same analysis: time of acquisition + source of funds + proof of contribution.

(3) Bank deposits, investments, insurance-funded purchases

Joint accounts or deposits are frequently treated as part of the co-owned pool, but tracing and proof can be decisive—especially under Art. 148.

(4) Businesses and shares

If a business was started or expanded during cohabitation, questions arise:
- Who funded it?
- Who worked in it?
- Was there an agreement on shares?
Even without formal documents, courts may look at contribution evidence, but outcomes vary by facts.

(5) Debts and obligations

Debts incurred to acquire or maintain common property can become part of the accounting.
Purely personal debts are generally not automatically chargeable to the other partner, but complications arise when a debt is tied to common assets.

2.3 Important limitation: donations between live-in partners are generally prohibited

The Family Code prohibits donations/gratuitous advantages between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, subject to narrow exceptions for moderate gifts on occasion (Family Code, Art. 87).

Why this matters in property disputes:

Attempts to “gift” a condo/land/business interest to a live-in partner may be attacked as void if structured as a donation.
Transfers must be examined: was it really a sale for value, or a disguised donation?

2.4 How property is “divided” in practice (there is no automatic “liquidation” like divorce)

When a live-in couple separates, there isn’t a single automatic legal process like “annulment liquidation” if there was no valid marriage. Property issues are usually resolved through:

A) Private settlement

Parties can execute a written agreement dividing assets and liabilities.
For real property, formalities matter (deeds, notarization, registration).

B) Civil cases in court (when there is no agreement)

Common remedies include:

Action for partition (to divide property held in co-ownership),
Action for accounting (to determine contributions, expenses, reimbursements, fruits/income, and shares),
Action to declare co-ownership / resulting trust-type claims (when title is in one name but the other asserts ownership interest),
Recovery of possession or reconveyance in some fact patterns.

Because property cases are evidence-driven, courts often focus on:

When the property was acquired,
Who paid (and from what funds),
Documentary proof (receipts, loan documents, bank records),
Testimony on the couple’s financial arrangements,
Whether Article 147 or 148 applies.

2.5 Evidence that tends to matter most

To support or defend a claim, the following commonly become critical:

Proof of capacity to marry (or the presence of an impediment) to classify the relationship under Art. 147 vs Art. 148:
- Certificates of No Marriage Record (CENOMAR) are often used in practice to show status, but the evidentiary approach depends on the case.
Proof of cohabitation and exclusivity (for Art. 147):
- Addresses, bills, barangay certificates, testimony.
Acquisition documents:
- Deeds of sale, titles, vehicle OR/CR, tax declarations.
Proof of payment / contribution:
- Bank transfers, remittance records, loan amortizations, receipts, pay slips.
Proof of non-monetary contribution:
- More significant under Art. 147 because the law recognizes household/family care as contribution to acquisition.

2.6 Separation scenarios and likely property consequences

Scenario 1: Both single, free to marry each other; lived exclusively for years; bought a house

Likely Art. 147 applies.
If acquired during cohabitation, courts often treat it as co-owned, frequently equal shares unless rebutted.

Scenario 2: One partner was still legally married to someone else; live-in bought property together

Likely Art. 148 applies.
The claimant must usually prove actual contribution and expect proportionate sharing, plus possible special consequences because the law protects the existing marriage property regime.

Scenario 3: Property is titled only in one partner’s name, but the other paid part of the price

Title is important, but not always conclusive as between the parties.
The non-titled partner’s success depends on:
- Whether Art. 147 presumption applies, and/or
- Whether credible proof of contribution exists (especially under Art. 148).

2.7 Death of a partner: what the survivor can and cannot claim

When one partner dies:

First, determine if there is co-owned property under Art. 147/148. The surviving partner may claim their share in the co-owned property before the remainder is treated as part of the deceased’s estate.
Second, inheritance rights are different:
- A live-in partner is generally not an heir by intestacy the way a legal spouse is.
- The survivor can inherit only if:
  - There is a valid will naming them (subject to compulsory heirs’ legitimes), or
  - There is another lawful mechanism (e.g., some contracts/beneficiary designations—subject to rules and potential challenges).
Children (legitimate or illegitimate) are typically compulsory heirs under Philippine succession law, so a parent’s estate distribution is heavily shaped by that.

3) Child custody when parents are unmarried

3.1 The starting point: legitimacy and its legal consequences

In the Philippines, whether a child is legitimate or illegitimate affects parental authority and custody.

A) Most children of unmarried parents are illegitimate

If parents were not validly married at the time of the child’s birth (and the child is not legitimated later under the Family Code), the child is generally illegitimate.

B) Legitimation can change the child’s status

Under the Family Code, certain illegitimate children can become legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents if legal requirements are met (including that the parents had no impediment to marry each other at the time of the child’s conception/birth). Legitimation, when it applies, changes legal relationships significantly.

C) Using the father’s surname does not automatically mean legitimacy

Philippine law allows an illegitimate child, in defined circumstances, to use the father’s surname upon recognition/acknowledgment (e.g., statutory changes associated with acknowledgment), but this generally does not by itself convert the child into legitimate or automatically transfer parental authority to the father.

3.2 Parental authority: who has it when the child is illegitimate?

For illegitimate children, the Family Code provides that parental authority is with the mother (Family Code, Art. 176, as amended). The father has obligations (notably support) and may have rights such as visitation, but the mother is the default holder of parental authority.

Practical implications:

If unmarried parents separate, the mother commonly retains custody of an illegitimate child as a matter of law.
The father’s typical route is to seek:
- Visitation / parenting time, and
- Enforcement or clarification of rights relating to the child (especially if disputes arise).
A father seeking custody of an illegitimate child generally must overcome the default rule by showing strong reasons (e.g., unfitness of the mother).

3.3 Custody standards: “best interest of the child” and the “tender-age” rule

A) Best interest of the child

Philippine courts decide custody primarily on the best interest of the child—a fact-intensive standard considering safety, stability, caregiving history, emotional bonds, and the child’s overall welfare.

B) Tender-age presumption (under seven)

The Family Code states that no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless there are compelling reasons to do so (Family Code, Art. 213). Even in disputes where the father seeks custody, courts give heavy weight to this rule, particularly for very young children.

Compelling reasons are typically serious concerns such as neglect, abuse, abandonment, substance addiction affecting care, severe instability, or danger to the child—proven by credible evidence.

3.4 Visitation: what unmarried fathers can realistically expect

Even where the mother has parental authority (especially with an illegitimate child), courts may recognize a father’s interest in maintaining a relationship with the child through visitation, so long as it serves the child’s welfare.

Visitation arrangements may be:

Regular weekends/holidays,
Daytime-only visits for younger children,
Supervised visitation when there are safety concerns,
Restrictions when there is credible risk (violence, kidnapping risk, substance abuse, etc.).

Courts can tailor schedules, require safe exchange arrangements, and impose conditions.

3.5 Support: unmarried status does not reduce parental obligations

Both parents have duties to support their child. “Support” in Philippine family law includes more than food—it generally covers what is necessary for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical care, education, and transportation consistent with the family’s means (Family Code provisions on support).

Key points:

A father’s duty to support an illegitimate child is legally enforceable.
Support can be pursued through Family Court petitions, and courts can order support pendente lite (support while the case is ongoing).
Persistent refusal to provide support can have additional consequences, including exposure under certain circumstances to laws addressing economic abuse (depending on facts and applicable statutes).

3.6 Establishing paternity (filiation) can be a prerequisite to enforcing some rights

If paternity is disputed or the father is not legally recognized, issues may arise:

The child (or the child’s representative) may need to establish filiation through recognized evidence (documents, admissions, and in some cases scientific evidence).
Without legal recognition, enforcing support and structuring custody/visitation becomes more complex.

3.7 Protection and safety: domestic violence affects custody and visitation

Unmarried status does not prevent protection under laws such as:

RA 9262 (Violence Against Women and Their Children), which can apply to a woman abused by a person with whom she has or had a dating/sexual relationship and to her child(ren).

Protection orders can include:

Orders affecting contact and distance,
Temporary custody arrangements,
Support-related directives,
Measures to prevent harassment or harm.

When violence is credibly alleged and supported, courts commonly limit or supervise visitation and prioritize safety.

4) Procedure: where and how custody and property disputes are filed

4.1 Family Courts and custody cases

Custody matters are generally handled in Family Courts (under RA 8369, the Family Courts Act), applying procedural rules such as the Rule on Custody of Minors and the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC).

Courts can issue:

Provisional custody orders (temporary custody while the case is pending),
Visitation schedules,
Orders to prevent removal of the child from jurisdiction in appropriate cases,
Other protective measures.

4.2 Property cases are usually separate civil actions

Property disputes (partition, reconveyance, accounting) are typically filed as civil actions. Venue and jurisdiction depend on:

Whether it is a real action (involving title/possession of real property),
The property’s location and assessed value,
The reliefs sought.

Because custody and property raise different legal issues and are governed by different procedural rules, they often proceed on separate tracks, though factual overlap is common.

5) Practical guide: how to think about outcomes (without guessing)

5.1 A quick classification checklist for property (Art. 147 vs Art. 148)

Ask:

At the time the couple lived together, were both legally free to marry each other?
Did they live exclusively as husband and wife?
Was there any subsisting marriage to another person?
What property was acquired during cohabitation, and how?

If the answers show both were free to marry each other and the relationship was exclusive, Art. 147 is the usual starting point. If not, Art. 148 is commonly invoked.

5.2 A custody reality checklist for unmarried parents

Ask:

Is the child legitimate, illegitimate, or legitimated?
Who has parental authority under the Family Code?
Is the child under seven (tender-age rule)?
Are there safety concerns (violence, neglect, instability)?
What arrangement best supports the child’s stability, schooling, and emotional welfare?

6) Frequently encountered questions

“We lived together for 10 years. Do I automatically get half of everything?”

Not automatically. Outcomes depend on whether Art. 147 or Art. 148 applies and on evidence about acquisition. Under Art. 147, there is often a strong presumption of co-ownership (frequently equal). Under Art. 148, the focus tends to be actual, provable contributions.

“The house is in my partner’s name only. Do I have rights?”

Possibly, depending on the applicable regime and proof. Title is important, but co-ownership claims can still be asserted when the facts support them.

“We are not married. Does the father have custody rights?”

If the child is illegitimate, parental authority is generally with the mother (Family Code, Art. 176). Fathers commonly seek visitation and can seek custody only with strong factual/legal basis (e.g., serious unfitness of the mother), always guided by the child’s welfare.

“Can the mother keep the child away from the father completely?”

Courts may restrict contact if it harms the child (e.g., violence, threats, serious instability). Otherwise, some form of contact/visitation is often structured if it serves the child’s best interests and is safe.

“Does acknowledging the child make the father equal in custody?”

Acknowledgment primarily affects filiation and related rights/obligations (like support and certain legal recognitions), but for an illegitimate child, parental authority is still generally with the mother under the Family Code framework unless a court orders otherwise based on compelling reasons.

“Are live-in partners allowed to donate property to each other?”

As a rule, donations between persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage are prohibited (Family Code, Art. 87), with limited exceptions for moderate gifts on occasion.

7) Key takeaways

Unmarried cohabitation does not create spousal status, but Philippine law imposes property consequences through Family Code Articles 147 and 148.
Property division is not automatic; it is resolved through settlement or civil actions, with outcomes shaped by relationship classification and evidence.
For children, the most decisive threshold issue is often legitimacy:
- Illegitimate child → parental authority generally with the mother (Family Code, Art. 176).
- Custody decisions are guided by the best interest standard, and children under seven are generally not separated from the mother absent compelling reasons (Family Code, Art. 213).
Support obligations apply regardless of the parents’ marital status.