A practical legal article on what the law provides, how rights are proven, and how property is divided when a live-in union ends.

1) The starting point: there is no “common-law marriage” in the Philippines

Living together does not create a marriage. A live-in relationship (often called a “union in fact”) does not produce the full bundle of marital rights—especially in succession (inheritance) and spousal benefits—unless the parties are validly married.

But the law does recognize that property can be acquired during cohabitation and provides rules on ownership, sharing, and forfeiture depending on the relationship’s circumstances.

2) The controlling law: Family Code property rules for cohabitation

Property rights of heterosexual live-in partners are primarily governed by the Family Code, particularly:

Article 147 – applies when the partners are capacitated to marry each other (and live exclusively as husband and wife), including certain situations where a marriage is void but the parties were still in an exclusive union; and
Article 148 – applies when one or both partners are not capacitated to marry each other (e.g., adulterous/bigamous/incestuous situations, or other circumstances outside Article 147).

If the relationship is not covered by these provisions (most notably same-sex cohabitation, because Articles 147 and 148 speak of a “man and a woman”), property questions fall back on ordinary civil law principles like co-ownership, implied trusts, contracts, and unjust enrichment.

3) The most important threshold question: which article applies?

A. Article 147 (the “capacitated to marry” rule)

Generally applies when all are true:

the parties are a man and a woman;
they are not disqualified to marry each other (no existing marriage, no prohibited relationship);
they live together exclusively as husband and wife; and
the union is without a valid marriage (or under a void marriage that still falls within the rule’s coverage).

Why it matters: Article 147 is more protective to the economically vulnerable partner because it uses stronger presumptions of equal sharing for property acquired during the union.

B. Article 148 (the “not capacitated” rule)

Applies when the relationship is outside Article 147, typically when:

one partner is married to someone else during the cohabitation; or
both are married to other persons; or
the union is otherwise disqualified or non-exclusive in a way that takes it outside Article 147.

Why it matters: Article 148 generally requires proof of actual contribution to claim a share. It is stricter and often less favorable to a partner who contributed primarily through household work.

4) Property regime under Article 147

A. What becomes “owned in common”

Under Article 147, property rules focus on what is acquired during the union:

Salaries and wages earned by either partner during the union
- Treated as owned in equal shares during the cohabitation (as a rule under Article 147).
Property acquired through the work or industry of either or both partners during the union
- Also treated as co-owned, typically in equal shares, even if only one partner’s name appears on the title—subject to proof and circumstances.
A key presumption
- There is a strong presumption of equal sharing for property acquired during the union through the parties’ work/industry, absent proof that a particular asset is exclusively owned.

B. What remains exclusive (not automatically shared)

Even under Article 147, these generally remain exclusive unless mixed with common funds or intentionally placed in co-ownership:

Property owned before cohabitation
Property acquired by gratuitous title (inheritance, pure donation)
Property clearly bought from exclusive funds and kept separate (though disputes often turn on proof)

C. “Contribution” includes more than cash

A major practical feature of Article 147 is that domestic contributions (household management, childcare, supporting the other’s career) can be treated as contributing to the acquisition of property during the union. In practice, courts can recognize that a partner who did not pay cash still contributed to the partnership-like effort that enabled acquisition.

D. Bad faith and forfeiture consequences

Article 147 has a built-in moral/penal component when one or both acted in bad faith in relation to the union (e.g., deception, knowingly entering a void setup in certain contexts). The law may cause the share of the party in bad faith to be forfeited, typically in favor of:

the common children (or their descendants), and if none,
the innocent party, and if none,
as the law provides (ultimately to the State in certain endpoints).

(These forfeiture rules are fact-sensitive and often litigated.)

5) Property regime under Article 148

Article 148 is stricter and generally applies to relationships where one or both parties lack capacity to marry each other (e.g., one is already married).

A. Only properties acquired by actual joint contribution are co-owned

Under Article 148:

Only properties acquired through the parties’ actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are treated as owned in common.
Shares are generally in proportion to proven contributions.

Important: The partner claiming a share usually must show evidence of contribution (payments, remittances, improvements, business participation, etc.).

B. Wages and salaries are typically exclusive

A practical distinction from Article 147: under Article 148, wages and salaries earned by each partner are generally treated as exclusively owned by the earner (and do not automatically become “common”), except to the extent they are traced into jointly acquired property with proven contribution.

C. Presumption of equal contributions can be limited

Article 148 may recognize a presumption of equality only when joint contribution is shown and exact proportions are unclear. But courts usually still look for a threshold showing that both contributed—especially when the relationship is adulterous/bigamous.

D. If one party is married, the share can “go back” to the lawful family regime

Where one party is legally married to someone else, the law tends to prevent the live-in relationship from draining property away from the absolute community or conjugal partnership of the existing marriage. Practically:

the married partner’s share in whatever co-ownership is recognized may be treated as belonging to (or accruing to) the married partner’s marital property regime, not freely disposable as against the lawful spouse and legitimate family.

E. Forfeiture rules may apply

In many Article 148 situations (adulterous/bigamous), the law can trigger forfeiture outcomes that prioritize:

common children, and/or
the lawful spouse/legitimate family interests, depending on the situation and proof.

6) Titled property: “It’s in my name” is not the end of the analysis

A common misconception is that the name on the title controls everything. In live-in property disputes:

Title is strong evidence of ownership, but it can be rebutted by proof that:
- the property was acquired during the union using common funds, or
- the non-titled partner made actual contributions, or
- there was an agreement or circumstances showing co-ownership, implied trust, or partnership-like acquisition.

Practical note: If a property is titled solely in one partner’s name, the other partner’s strongest tools are typically tracing of funds, proof of payments/improvements, and credible testimony supported by documents.

7) Bank accounts, businesses, vehicles, and “intangibles”

A. Bank deposits and investments

Courts typically look at:

who funded the account,
whether deposits came from wages during the union,
whether the account was treated as pooled funds.

B. Businesses formed or expanded during cohabitation

Key factors:

capital contributions,
participation in operations,
reinvestment of earnings traceable to the union,
whether business assets are separable from personal funds.

C. Vehicles and personal property

These are often decided by:

registration (helpful but not conclusive),
proof of payment,
consistent possession and use,
insurance/maintenance expense records.

8) Debts and obligations incurred during the union

Live-in partners do not automatically become liable for each other’s debts the way spouses can under certain marital regimes. Liability usually depends on:

who signed,
whether the debt benefitted the partnership/common household,
whether common property was expressly bound,
proof of consent/ratification.

If a loan was taken to acquire a co-owned asset, allocation often follows the ownership sharing (but still depends on contract documents and evidence).

9) What happens when the live-in relationship ends

Live-in unions end by separation, abandonment, death, or sometimes by one party contracting a valid marriage.

A. Separation or breakup: partition and liquidation

Common remedies include:

Action for partition (to divide co-owned property)
Accounting (to determine contributions, expenses, fruits/income)
Reconveyance or declaration of co-ownership (when title does not reflect the true ownership)
Damages in proper cases (fraud, abuse, bad faith)

B. Death of a partner: the survivor is not automatically an heir

A surviving live-in partner generally has no automatic right to inherit as a spouse.

But the survivor may still:

claim and separate their share in co-owned property (Article 147/148 or civil law co-ownership); before the deceased’s estate is distributed; and
inherit only if named in a valid will, subject to rules on legitime and disqualifications.

Critical practical point: Many disputes arise because families treat all assets as part of the estate, while the survivor claims some assets are not estate property but co-owned.

C. Can the deceased “donate” property to the live-in partner during life?

Philippine law restricts donations that offend public policy—especially in adulterous/concubinage contexts. Inter vivos transfers between illicit partners can be attacked as void depending on the relationship circumstances. This is highly fact-sensitive and often litigated.

10) Children in live-in relationships: legitimacy and property implications

Property division between partners is one issue; children’s rights are another.

Children’s support rights exist regardless of the parents’ marital status.
Children’s successional rights depend on their legal status and recognition/legitimation rules, but as a general matter, children (once legally recognized) can inherit from parents.
For property disputes between partners, the presence of common children can affect forfeiture outcomes under the Family Code rules.

11) Same-sex live-in partners: how property rights are usually analyzed

Because Articles 147 and 148 speak in terms of a “man and a woman,” same-sex partners commonly rely on:

ordinary co-ownership rules (shared purchase, shared possession)
contracts (express or implied agreements)
implied trust (one holds title but another paid)
unjust enrichment and equitable principles (no one should unfairly benefit at another’s expense)

Best practice: written agreements, receipts, and clear documentation of contributions matter even more here because the Family Code’s cohabitation presumptions may not be available.

12) Evidence: what actually wins (or loses) these cases

Because live-in property disputes are proof-heavy, outcomes often depend on documentation. Strong evidence includes:

Deeds of sale, contracts to sell, loan documents
Bank records, remittance slips, checks, transfer confirmations
Receipts for down payments, amortizations, construction materials
Proof of improvements: building permits, contractor agreements, photos with dates, invoices
Business records: SEC/DTI papers, books, tax filings (as applicable)
Messages/emails acknowledging shared ownership (careful: authenticity matters)
Credible witness testimony (neighbors, relatives, co-workers) supported by documents

Weak evidence patterns:

purely verbal claims with no traceable support
vague assertions of contribution without amounts/dates
claims contradicted by financial capacity (e.g., alleged payments without income proof)

13) Procedural notes: where and how cases are filed

Many disputes are filed as civil actions (partition, reconveyance, declaration of nullity of title, accounting).
Depending on the nature of the controversy, actions involving family relations and property consequences can fall within family court jurisdiction where applicable.
Some disputes may require preliminary steps like barangay conciliation depending on the parties’ residence and the action’s character, unless exceptions apply.

Because procedure can make or break a case (especially when titles and third parties are involved), early legal advice is often decisive.

14) Practical drafting and planning tips for live-in partners

If the goal is to prevent disputes:

Document contributions
- keep receipts, transfer records, amortization proofs.
Use written agreements
- a co-ownership agreement, property-sharing agreement, or at least written acknowledgments.
Be intentional about titling
- co-titling can help but is not a magic shield if the relationship is legally disqualified (Article 148 issues can still arise).
Separate “estate planning” from “ownership”
- ownership determines what is yours now; succession determines who gets what after death.
Avoid informal “waivers” signed under pressure
- these are frequently attacked on consent, fairness, or public policy grounds depending on context.

15) Key takeaways

The Philippines does not recognize common-law marriage, but it does regulate property acquired during cohabitation.
Article 147 (capacity to marry + exclusivity) generally favors equal sharing of property acquired during the union, including treatment of wages/salaries.
Article 148 (no capacity to marry, e.g., adulterous/bigamous) requires proof of actual contribution and tends to protect the lawful family regime.
Title matters, but tracing and proof often decide the real ownership.
A surviving live-in partner is not automatically an heir, but can claim their share of co-owned property before estate distribution.
For same-sex partners, property claims are typically handled through civil law co-ownership, contracts, trusts, and equity rather than the Family Code’s cohabitation presumptions.

This article is for general legal information in the Philippine context and is not a substitute for advice on a specific case, where small facts (timelines, marital status, titles, proof of contributions) can completely change the outcome.