I. Why OFW-acquired assets create unique legal disputes

Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) commonly acquire assets through foreign employment—regular wages, remittances, savings, investments, benefits, and property purchased in the Philippines through agents or relatives. Disputes often arise because (1) the OFW is away when assets are acquired and titled, (2) money moves through informal channels or family members, and (3) family relationships are complicated—valid marriages left in the Philippines, “live-in” relationships formed during separation, and children from different relationships.

In Philippine law, property rights depend far more on legal status (marriage, capacity to marry, legitimacy/illegitimacy of children) than on labels like “live-in” or “partner.” The same house bought from OFW remittances can be (a) part of the spouses’ community property, (b) co-owned with a partner, (c) exclusive property, or (d) property held in trust for someone else—depending on the governing property regime and proof of contribution.

II. Key legal concepts and terms (Philippine context)

A. Live-in partner vs. spouse

A spouse (as recognized by law) is a party to a valid marriage. A live-in partner is a person cohabiting “as husband and wife” without a valid marriage between them. A live-in partner is not automatically an heir, beneficiary, or co-owner of everything acquired during cohabitation.

B. Property relations depend on “capacity to marry”

Philippine law treats cohabitation differently depending on whether the parties were legally free to marry each other:

If both were free to marry each other (no existing marriage, not within prohibited degrees, etc.) and they lived exclusively as husband and wife without a valid marriage (or under a void marriage): Family Code Article 147 generally applies.
If one or both were not free to marry each other (e.g., the OFW is married to someone else, or there is another impediment): Family Code Article 148 generally applies.

These two rules lead to drastically different outcomes.

C. Children: legitimate, illegitimate, adopted

Legitimate children are generally those born or conceived during a valid marriage of the parents.
Illegitimate children are those conceived and born outside a valid marriage (with limited exceptions such as legitimation in specific situations).
Adopted children are generally treated like legitimate children for many purposes, including succession.

Children’s rights also differ during the parent’s lifetime (mainly support) versus upon the parent’s death (inheritance/legitime).

III. The starting point: Is the OFW married, and what is the property regime?

A. If the OFW is married: Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership usually governs

For many marriages, the default property regime is:

Absolute Community of Property (ACP) for marriages celebrated after the Family Code took effect (unless a valid prenuptial agreement provides otherwise).
Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) commonly applies to marriages before the Family Code (again, unless varied by agreement).

Why this matters for OFWs: OFW wages and salaries earned during marriage are commonly treated as part of the community/conjugal fund (subject to exclusions and proof), so remittances used to buy property can legally belong to the marital partnership, not solely to the OFW and certainly not automatically to a live-in partner.

B. Disposition/transfer rules protect the lawful spouse

Under ACP/CPG, sale, mortgage, donation, or encumbrance of community/conjugal real property generally requires spousal consent (or court authority in specific situations). If an OFW transfers or titles property in someone else’s name using community funds without proper consent and in fraud of the spouse, the lawful spouse may have strong remedies (e.g., actions to recover property, reconveyance, nullification of simulated transfers, or protection of the marital share).

C. Physical separation does not automatically end the marriage or property regime

Even if spouses have been separated for years (common in OFW situations), the marriage remains valid unless legally ended, and the property regime typically continues unless dissolved or modified by law (e.g., judicial separation of property, legal separation with effects, nullity/annulment outcomes, etc.). A “live-in” relationship formed during this period is usually treated under Article 148, not Article 147.

IV. Property rights of a live-in partner over OFW-acquired assets

A. When the OFW and partner were free to marry each other: Article 147 (cohabitation without impediment)

1. What property becomes co-owned

When Article 147 applies, the general rule is that:

Wages and salaries earned by either or both during the relationship are generally treated as owned in equal shares.
Property acquired through their work or industry during the union is generally governed by co-ownership principles.

A crucial feature of Article 147 is the presumption of equal contribution absent proof to the contrary, and domestic care (raising children, managing the household) may be treated as a contribution for purposes of sharing in acquisitions.

2. What property remains exclusive

Even under Article 147, not everything becomes co-owned. In general:

Property owned by one partner before cohabitation remains exclusive.
Property acquired by gratuitous title (donation/inheritance) generally remains exclusive to the recipient (subject to special situations).
Property bought with exclusive funds may be proven exclusive.

3. Titling does not automatically decide ownership

If a property is titled solely in the OFW’s name, the partner may still claim a co-ownership interest under Article 147—but the claim becomes evidence-driven. Conversely, if the property is titled in the partner’s name, the OFW (or later, the OFW’s heirs) may argue the partner was only a nominee if the purchase money was traced to the OFW and the facts support a trust theory.

4. Ending the union: partition and accounting

When the relationship ends (separation or death), the co-owned property is generally subject to:

Accounting (what was acquired during the union, what funds were used),
Partition (division of co-owned property),
Settlement of obligations (debts related to acquisitions).

B. When there was an impediment (most common in OFW “second family” scenarios): Article 148 (limited co-ownership)

1. The strict rule: only actual joint contributions count

When Article 148 applies (e.g., the OFW is married to someone else), the law is far less generous to the live-in partner:

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

No contribution, no share. This is a major turning point in disputes involving a married OFW and a live-in partner.

2. Domestic services are usually not enough under Article 148

Unlike Article 147, Article 148 typically requires actual contribution—cash, property, or participation in an income-producing enterprise—rather than household care alone. In practice, this means a partner who merely “managed the home” may find it difficult to obtain a property share under Article 148 without proof of actual contribution.

3. OFW salary alone usually does not create partner co-ownership under Article 148

If a property was bought solely from OFW earnings and the partner did not contribute money/property/industry, then under Article 148 the partner’s property claim is often weak—even if the property was titled in the partner’s name. The lawful spouse may argue the asset is part of the marital partnership (ACP/CPG), and the partner was merely a transferee/nominee.

4. The lawful spouse’s shadow claim is powerful

Where the OFW is married, the OFW’s share in property acquired during the illicit union can be claimed to belong to the OFW’s existing marital property regime (community/conjugal), not “free property” that the OFW can simply allocate to the partner. This is why a lawful spouse frequently succeeds in recovering property bought with OFW remittances even when titled under a partner’s name.

5. Forfeiture for bad faith and the role of common children

Articles 147 and 148 contain forfeiture rules tied to good faith/bad faith. In broad strokes:

If one party is in bad faith, that party’s share in the co-ownership may be forfeited in favor of the parties’ common children (or their descendants).
If there are no such children/descendants, the share may go to the innocent party (where applicable).

In “second family” OFW scenarios, this can matter because the law sometimes channels a wrongdoer’s share toward the children rather than toward the partner.

C. Donations and transfers to a live-in partner: common traps

1. Donations between adulterous/concubinage partners are generally void

Philippine civil law contains strong policy rules against transfers designed to benefit an illicit partner at the expense of the lawful family. Donations made under adulterous/concubinage circumstances are generally vulnerable to being declared void.

2. “Sale” that is really a gift can be attacked

A common pattern is a “deed of sale” to the partner for an unreal price. If the transaction is simulated or intended as a gift, it may be attacked as:

a void donation (if prohibited),
a simulated contract,
a transfer in fraud of the lawful spouse/heirs.

3. Titling in the partner’s name does not automatically defeat the lawful spouse

Registration is strong evidence, but it does not automatically legalize a transfer funded by community/conjugal property or a prohibited donation. Litigation often turns on proof: remittance records, bank trails, communications, and who actually paid.

V. Property rights of children over OFW-acquired assets

A. During the OFW’s lifetime: children’s strongest right is support, not ownership

1. Support is enforceable regardless of legitimacy

Children—legitimate or illegitimate—have the right to support from their parents, proportionate to the parent’s means and the child’s needs. Support generally includes necessities (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) and education appropriate to the family’s capacity.

This is often the most immediate legal leverage a child (or the child’s custodian) has while the OFW is alive.

2. Children do not automatically “own” the OFW’s assets while the OFW is alive

As a rule, children do not acquire ownership simply because a parent earned the money. Ownership arises only if:

the asset is titled to the child (and not merely held in trust/nominee),
the asset is donated to the child (subject to legal limits),
the child inherits upon the parent’s death.

3. If assets are placed in a child’s name, legal consequences follow

Placing property in a child’s name can mean:

a valid transfer/donation, or
a trust/nominee arrangement (if the child was only used to hold title).

If the OFW is married and uses community/conjugal funds, transfers may still be scrutinized to protect the lawful spouse and other compulsory heirs, especially if the transaction effectively deprives them of their protected shares.

B. Upon the OFW’s death: inheritance (succession) and legitime dominate

1. Compulsory heirs and the concept of legitime

Philippine succession law reserves a portion of the estate—the legitime—for compulsory heirs. The key compulsory heirs commonly involved in OFW disputes are:

Legitimate children (and their descendants),
Illegitimate children,
Surviving spouse,
Legitimate parents/ascendants (in the absence of legitimate children).

Because of legitime rules, an OFW generally cannot freely leave everything to a live-in partner, especially if there are children and/or a lawful spouse.

2. Illegitimate children are compulsory heirs

Children outside marriage (once filiation is legally established) are compulsory heirs and inherit by law, though their shares are generally less than those of legitimate children. This is one of the most important realities in OFW “second family” disputes: the children may have enforceable inheritance rights even when the partner does not.

3. The live-in partner is generally not an heir by intestacy

A live-in partner is not a compulsory heir and generally has no right to inherit by intestate succession (no will). If the OFW dies without a will, the estate is distributed to heirs recognized by law—typically spouse and children (and/or parents), not a partner.

4. Can a live-in partner inherit through a will?

A will can give property to non-heirs only within the free portion after satisfying legitimes. However:

If the partner relationship falls within prohibited categories (e.g., adulterous/concubinage circumstances), testamentary provisions in favor of the partner can be attacked under rules on incapacity/prohibition tied to illicit relations.
Even when not prohibited, the gift is limited by the legitimes of spouse/children/other compulsory heirs.

5. Step-by-step: determining what actually goes into the OFW’s estate

Before anyone inherits, the estate must be identified. In OFW cases this is frequently misunderstood.

If the OFW was married under ACP/CPG:

Identify community/conjugal property.
Separate the lawful spouse’s share (often effectively half of the net community/conjugal property, depending on the regime and circumstances).
The OFW’s estate consists of:
- the OFW’s share in the community/conjugal property, plus
- the OFW’s exclusive/separate properties, minus
- obligations chargeable to the estate.

Only then is succession applied.

If the OFW was not married but was in an Article 147/148 situation:

Identify co-owned properties (if any) with the partner.
Determine each party’s share.
The OFW’s estate includes only the OFW’s share, not the partner’s.

6. Filiation proof is often the battleground

For children from a live-in relationship, inheritance rights usually depend on proving filiation through recognized modes (e.g., civil registry records, acknowledgment, and other evidence allowed by law). When the father is deceased, evidence disputes can become central.

VI. Special assets common to OFWs: benefits, insurance, and beneficiary designations

OFWs often accumulate assets that do not behave like ordinary property titles, such as:

life insurance proceeds,
employer death benefits,
retirement plans,
government-administered benefits.

These can be governed by special laws, contracts, and agency rules that define beneficiaries and procedures differently from ordinary succession. Two practical realities frequently appear:

Beneficiary designations matter. Some proceeds may go directly to named beneficiaries (depending on the governing framework), bypassing ordinary estate administration.
“Spouse” often means legal spouse. Many systems prioritize the lawful spouse and dependent children. A live-in partner may be excluded unless specifically recognized under the governing rules and supported by proof.

Because these frameworks are highly document-driven, disputes often hinge on official records (marriage certificate, birth certificates, dependency, beneficiary forms) rather than on the parties’ personal narratives.

VII. Common OFW scenarios and how Philippine law typically treats them

Scenario 1: OFW is legally married; buys a house in the Philippines using remittances; titles it under the live-in partner

If remittances are community/conjugal funds, the lawful spouse can argue the house is part of the marital property regime.
The live-in partner’s claim is typically limited to proven contributions under Article 148 (if any).
If the transfer is effectively a donation to an illicit partner, it is highly vulnerable.

Scenario 2: OFW is single; cohabits with a partner; both build a small business using combined income

Article 147 is likely relevant if both were free to marry.
Property acquired through work/industry and wages/salaries during the union are commonly treated as co-owned, often with strong presumptions favoring equal sharing absent proof to the contrary.

Scenario 3: OFW dies intestate; has lawful spouse + legitimate children in the Philippines; also has a live-in partner and children from that relationship

The lawful spouse and legitimate children are primary heirs.
The partner generally has no intestate share.
The children from the second relationship may inherit as illegitimate children if filiation is established, but their shares differ from legitimate children.

Scenario 4: OFW executes a will leaving “everything” to a live-in partner, ignoring spouse/children

Compulsory heirs can challenge dispositions that impair legitime.
If the partner relationship is legally prohibited for succession purposes (e.g., adultery/concubinage rules in play), the disposition may be attacked on that ground as well.

VIII. Practical evidence issues: what typically proves or defeats claims

Evidence that often strengthens a partner’s property claim (especially under Article 147/148)

Proof of money contribution: bank transfers, receipts, remittance trails tied to purchases
Proof of “industry” contribution: documented participation in a business, payroll, permits, accounting records
Contracts and written agreements
Proof of loan payments, construction materials purchases, amortization schedules

Evidence that often strengthens the lawful spouse/heirs’ claim

Proof the OFW’s funds were community/conjugal and used for acquisition
Proof of lack of partner contribution
Proof of simulation or donation disguised as a sale
Proof that the OFW lacked authority/consent to dispose of marital property

Evidence central to children’s claims

Civil registry documents (birth certificates, annotations)
Proof of acknowledgment/recognition
Other admissible evidence of filiation where records are contested

IX. Takeaways (as a matter of Philippine legal structure)

A live-in partner’s rights are not automatic and depend heavily on whether Article 147 or Article 148 applies and on proof of contribution.
A lawful spouse has powerful protections over property acquired during marriage, including many OFW-funded acquisitions.
Children’s strongest lifetime right is support; their strongest post-death right is legitime.
The live-in partner is generally not an intestate heir, while children (including illegitimate children, once proven) are recognized as heirs with protected shares.
Titling and paperwork are not the full story, but they strongly influence outcomes because OFW cases are evidence-intensive.