When “Support” Becomes Unjust Enrichment, a Recoverable Debt, or Fraud

Money moves easily in intimate relationships—rent paid “for now,” bills covered “until payday,” a phone bought “so we can stay in touch,” cash sent “for an emergency,” capital put into “our future business,” or a downpayment placed on property titled in one name “for convenience.” When the relationship ends (or the truth comes out), the payer often discovers that what felt like “help” may legally be (1) a gift, (2) support that cannot be reclaimed, (3) a loan or investment that can be collected, (4) an unjust enrichment claim, (5) a trust/reconveyance case over property, or (6) fraud/estafa with civil damages.

This article explains the Philippine legal framework for recovering money spent on a partner, focusing on unjust enrichment and fraud, and the practical realities of proving intent in court.

1) Start With the Hard Truth: Love Is Not a Contract—But Money Can Be

Philippine law generally does not treat romantic relationships (by themselves) as enforceable commercial arrangements. Courts are cautious about turning heartbreak into a collectible account.

Still, recovery becomes possible when the facts fit recognized legal categories:

Debt (loan, reimbursement agreement, promissory undertaking)
Quasi-contract (unjust enrichment / solutio indebiti / negotiorum gestio)
Property/trust (you paid for property titled in the partner’s name)
Damages (abuse of rights, bad faith, fraud)
Criminal fraud (estafa) with civil liability

Everything turns on (a) intent at the time of transfer, (b) the legal ground (or lack of it), and (c) proof.

2) The Legal “Buckets” for Money Given to a Partner

Before choosing a remedy, each payment should be classified. One relationship can involve multiple categories.

A. Gifts / Donations (Usually Not Recoverable)

If the money was given gratuitously—no expectation of return—it is a donation in substance.

Key Civil Code rules:

A donation is generally irrevocable once perfected, subject to limited grounds for revocation (e.g., ingratitude or non-fulfillment of conditions, depending on the type of donation).
Form matters: donation of personal property above a statutory threshold generally requires a written form to be valid (Civil Code rules on formalities for donations of movables). In practice, many “cash gifts” are informal—this can complicate classification and can also trigger arguments about natural obligations and voluntary performance (explained below).

B. Support (Often Not Recoverable as “Reimbursement”)

In Philippine family law, support is a special concept. Under the Family Code provisions on support (commonly cited around Arts. 194–208), “support” covers necessities such as sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education, and transportation, proportionate to the giver’s means and recipient’s needs.

Between spouses, mutual support is a legal duty (Family Code).
Between parents and children, support is also a legal duty.
Between dating partners, there is generally no legal duty to support each other as partners—but there can be support duties tied to a child.

Even when there is no legal duty (e.g., boyfriend/girlfriend), the law can treat certain voluntary assistance as non-reimbursable where it functions as support given out of affection or moral duty—especially absent proof of a repayment agreement.

C. Loans / Advances (Recoverable)

If there was an agreement—written or provable oral—that the partner would pay back the money, it is a loan (mutuum) or a debt.

Typical evidence:

“Utang” admissions in chat
repayment schedules, partial payments
acknowledgments (“I’ll pay you back,” “pautang,” “advance lang”)
promissory note, IOU, receipts

This is the cleanest path: collection of sum of money.

D. Investments / Business Funding (Recoverable Depending on Structure)

If money was given to fund a business or property purchase with the understanding of shared ownership or returns, recovery may be framed as:

partnership/joint venture contribution
reimbursement for expenses made on behalf of another
constructive trust if partner took title or control contrary to the agreement

The difficulty is proving the business terms.

E. Payments Made “By Mistake” or Without Legal Ground (Recoverable)

This is where unjust enrichment and solutio indebiti come in:

you paid something not actually owed
you sent money to the wrong account
you paid a debt believing it was your obligation when it wasn’t
you delivered money relying on a false premise later proven untrue

F. Money Obtained Through Deceit (Recoverable; Possibly Criminal)

If the partner induced transfers by false pretenses, it may be:

civil fraud/bad faith (damages)
estafa under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), typically Article 315 categories, plus civil liability

3) Unjust Enrichment in the Philippines: The Core Recovery Theory When There’s No Contract

A. The Anchor Rule: Civil Code Article 22

The Civil Code provides the foundational principle: no one should unjustly enrich themselves at another’s expense without just or legal ground. Article 22 is often described as the “unjust enrichment” rule.

In practice, unjust enrichment claims are often pleaded through:

quasi-contract (Civil Code Art. 2142 concept: lawful, voluntary, unilateral acts that create obligations to prevent unjust enrichment)
solutio indebiti (Art. 2154 and related provisions: undue payment through mistake)

B. Elements (Practical Court-Framing)

Courts typically look for these core ideas:

Enrichment of the defendant (partner received money/benefit)
Impoverishment of the plaintiff (payer lost money/value)
Connection between enrichment and impoverishment (your money caused their benefit)
Absence of just cause (no legal ground: not a valid donation, not owed, not a lawful obligation)
No other adequate remedy (unjust enrichment is often used when contract theories are weak or absent)

C. Common Relationship Scenarios That Fit Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment tends to work best when the transfer looks like restitution rather than “payment for love.”

Examples:

You paid for a property downpayment, but title was placed solely in the partner’s name, and the partner refuses to recognize your share.
You funded a specific purpose (e.g., “processing fee,” “visa fee,” “medical emergency”), but the purpose was fabricated or never happened and the partner kept the money.
You paid a debt believing you were liable (or believing the partner would reimburse), but it turns out you were not responsible and the partner had no basis to keep the benefit.
You continued paying expenses after breakup due to confusion, threats, or misrepresentation.

D. Solutio Indebiti: Undue Payment (Civil Code Art. 2154)

Solutio indebiti is a powerful sub-type of restitution:

Something is received when there is no right to demand it, and
It was unduly delivered through mistake.

The key is mistake: you paid thinking it was due, but it wasn’t.

Relationship examples:

Paying “required” fees for a nonexistent job offer arranged by the partner
Sending money after being told a relative died—later discovered false
Paying “penalty” amounts to “release” a parcel that doesn’t exist
Paying a bill you thought was joint, when it was exclusively theirs and you were misled

If the partner knew it wasn’t due and still accepted it, the equities become stronger.

E. Where Unjust Enrichment Usually Fails

Unjust enrichment is not a magic undo button for everything spent during a relationship.

Common failure points:

The transfers look like voluntary generosity (food, dates, routine allowances) with no proof of repayment expectation.
The payer knew the partner had no legal duty to repay and still gave regularly.
The “benefit” is hard to quantify or is inherently relational (companionship, emotional reliance).
The arrangement is tied to immoral/illegal causes, triggering defenses like in pari delicto (when both parties are at fault in an unlawful arrangement), though outcomes can vary depending on who sues and the public-policy purpose of the rule invoked.

4) When “Support” Crosses Into Recoverable Territory

A recurring confusion is calling everything “support.” Legally, support is narrow and value-laden. Courts separate:

A. Ordinary Relationship Spending (Usually Not Recoverable)

daily living expenses voluntarily covered
gifts, leisure, travel, gadgets “for you”
money given without documentation or repayment language

These often get treated as:

donation, or
voluntary performance / natural obligation type reasoning

B. Support With a Clear Reimbursement Agreement (Potentially Recoverable)

If the money was for necessities but explicitly treated as utang, a court can treat it as a loan, not “support.”

Evidence that converts “support” into debt:

“Pautang muna—bayaran mo pag may work ka”
“Advance lang to, ibabalik mo next month”
consistent partial repayments
an acknowledgment of debt

C. Support Given Under Mistake or Deceit (Recoverable)

Even if the money covered “needs,” it becomes recoverable if:

you gave it due to a mistake (solutio indebiti), or
you were induced by fraud (civil fraud or estafa)

Example: sending “rent” to prevent eviction when there was no eviction, no lease issue, or the partner fabricated the crisis.

5) Fraud, Bad Faith, and Estafa: When It’s Not Just Unfair—It’s Deceitful

A. Civil Fraud / Bad Faith (Civil Code: Obligations & Damages)

Philippine civil law recognizes liability for fraud and bad faith in obligations and for acts contrary to law/morals/public policy:

Civil Code provisions on fraud in obligations and contracts (e.g., liability for damages)
Civil Code Arts. 19, 20, 21 (abuse of rights; acts contrary to law; acts contrary to morals/good customs/public policy causing damage)

Civil fraud claims often seek:

return of the money (restitution)
actual damages (provable losses)
moral damages (in appropriate cases, especially where there is willful injury)
exemplary damages (in aggravated cases)
attorney’s fees (only under specific legal bases)

B. Estafa (Revised Penal Code Article 315)

Estafa generally requires:

Deceit (false pretense, fraudulent act)
Reliance (victim was induced)
Damage (money/property lost)

Common romance-linked estafa patterns:

fake emergency narratives
fake business opportunities
fake “processing fees” (travel/visa/job/parcel)
misuse or conversion of money given for a specific purpose
borrowing with intent never to repay coupled with deceptive assurances (facts matter)

A criminal complaint can pressure repayment because it carries the risk of prosecution, but it also demands stronger proof and exposes both sides to scrutiny.

C. A Major Complication: Article 332 (Family/Spousal Exemption for Certain Property Crimes)

The Revised Penal Code has an exemption from criminal liability for theft, swindling (estafa), and malicious mischief committed between certain close relatives (notably spouses, and in some configurations other close family members). The effect is usually:

no criminal liability, but
civil liability may remain

This matters when the “partner” is actually a spouse, or the relationship falls under the legally recognized family coverage of that exemption. The civil case may be the proper route even when criminal filing is blocked.

(For non-spouse romantic partners, this exemption usually does not apply.)

6) Property Bought With Your Money but Put in Your Partner’s Name: Trust and Reconveyance

Many “support” disputes are actually property disputes.

A. Resulting Trust (Civil Code Article 1448 Concept)

If you paid the purchase price but title was placed in someone else’s name, the law may recognize an implied/resulting trust—unless the transfer was intended as a gift/donation.

Relationship framing:

“I paid the downpayment; we agreed the unit is ours; title was placed in your name for convenience.”

Evidence that helps:

bank transfers to seller/developer
receipts showing your payments
messages discussing co-ownership
proof of your exclusive funding

B. Constructive Trust (Civil Code Article 1456 Concept)

If the partner acquired or retained property through fraud, mistake, or abuse, the law may treat them as holding it in trust for the person who should benefit.

This is especially useful where:

the partner promised joint titling then secretly titled solely
the partner used your funds for a different property
the partner used deception to obtain ownership

C. Cohabitation Rules: Family Code Articles 147 and 148

If the couple lived together as partners, Family Code rules can govern property relations:

Article 147 (generally applied to a man and woman living together as husband and wife with capacity to marry each other): property acquired during union through their work or industry is presumed co-owned in certain ways; contributions can include work and care of the household, not only money.
Article 148 (relationships where one or both are not capacitated to marry, e.g., one is married to someone else): co-ownership is more restrictive; shares depend more strictly on actual contributions.

These provisions can matter when the “money spent” was actually contribution to property acquisition.

D. Married Spouses: Reimbursement Depends on Property Regime

If married, recovery is not framed as “unjust enrichment” between spouses as easily, because:

spouses have mutual duties (including support)
property is governed by the marriage settlement / default regime (e.g., absolute community or conjugal partnership)
reimbursements can exist where exclusive funds were used for community obligations or acquisitions, but the mechanism is through the property regime accounting, not a casual “pay me back” approach.

7) Donations and Illicit Relationships: When the Law Voidifies “Gifts” (But Recovery Has Traps)

A. Donations Between Spouses During Marriage: Family Code Article 87

Family Code Article 87 generally provides that donations between spouses during marriage are void, except moderate gifts on occasions of family rejoicing. This rule exists to prevent undue influence and protect the marital property regime.

But not every expense is a “donation.” Paying household expenses, family needs, or even buying items for use can be argued as support/family expense, not a donation.

B. Donations in Adultery/Concubinage Situations: Civil Code Article 739

Civil Code Article 739 declares certain donations void, including those between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of donation (and other specified categories).

Practical impact:

Transfers framed as “gifts” in an illicit relationship may be attacked as void.
However, recovery can collide with defenses like in pari delicto (the idea that a party to an immoral/illegal cause may be barred from recovering), and questions of who has standing (often the legal spouse/heirs have clearer policy-based standing). Outcomes are fact-sensitive.

C. Engagement and Marriage-Related Gifts (Donations Propter Nuptias)

Philippine family law recognizes donations by reason of marriage with special rules (formalities, revocation in some circumstances such as when the marriage does not take place under certain conditions). This can be relevant to:

engagement rings and pre-wedding transfers
wedding-related property or large gifts conditioned on marriage

Whether a specific item is treated as a recoverable “conditional gift” depends on facts and proof of the condition.

8) “Natural Obligations” and the Problem of Voluntary Payments

Philippine civil law distinguishes civil obligations (enforceable in court) from natural obligations (not enforceable, but once voluntarily performed, generally not recoverable). This concept often appears implicitly in relationship-money disputes:

If money was given out of moral duty/affection, without legal obligation and without repayment expectation, courts are reluctant to order reimbursement.
The defense is essentially: “It was voluntarily given; it cannot now be reclaimed simply because the relationship ended.”

To overcome this, evidence must point toward:

mistake, or
deceit, or
agreement to repay, or
specific purpose not fulfilled, or
property rights (trust/reconveyance), not mere consumption.

9) Evidence: The Real Make-or-Break Issue

A. What Must Be Proven

A claimant typically must prove at least one of these:

There was a loan (agreement to repay)
There was a specific undertaking (you paid for X, they must do Y or return the money)
There was mistake (solutio indebiti)
There was fraud/deceit (civil fraud or estafa)
There is a property right (trust/co-ownership)

B. Useful Evidence

bank transfer records, remittance receipts
screenshots of chats showing: request + purpose + promise to repay
admissions (“utang ko,” “babayaran kita”)
partial repayments (strong indicator of debt)
receipts from sellers/developers showing who paid
witnesses to agreements (careful with hearsay; direct testimony matters)
documents: IOUs, promissory notes, acknowledgments

C. Risky or Illegal Evidence Practices

Secretly intercepting private communications you are not a party to can create legal exposure. Evidence collection should stay within lawful boundaries (e.g., preserving communications where you are a participant, keeping your own banking and remittance records).

10) Procedure and Forum: How These Cases Typically Move

A. Demand and Documentation

A written demand (letter, email, message) helps establish:

the debt/restitution claim
the date of extrajudicial demand (often relevant to interest or timing issues)

B. Barangay Conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

Many civil disputes between individuals who live in the same city/municipality fall under mandatory barangay conciliation rules, subject to exceptions (e.g., parties residing in different cities/municipalities, urgent cases, certain protected matters). Skipping mandatory conciliation when required can lead to dismissal.

C. Civil Actions

Possible civil case types:

collection of sum of money (loan/debt)
recovery of personal property
reconveyance / annulment of title (trust/property)
damages (fraud/bad faith; Arts. 19–21, quasi-delict Art. 2176, etc.)
restitution under quasi-contract (unjust enrichment / solutio indebiti)

D. Criminal Actions

Estafa complaints are filed with prosecutors (or through appropriate complaint mechanisms), requiring proof of deceit and damage.
Civil liability can attach to the criminal case, but the dynamics and burden differ.

11) Prescription (Time Limits): Don’t Sleep on the Claim

Different causes of action have different prescriptive periods under the Civil Code:

Written contracts often prescribe longer than oral agreements.
Quasi-contract and quasi-delict have their own periods.
Fraud-based actions may have special rules (e.g., counting from discovery in some contexts).
Criminal estafa has prescription tied to penalty classifications.

Because classification drives the deadline, delays can silently kill an otherwise valid claim.

12) Defenses to Expect—and How Claims Survive Them

Defense: “It was a gift.”

Survives when there is proof of:

explicit repayment intent (loan language)
partial repayments
purpose-based transfer not fulfilled
fraud/mistake

Defense: “That was support; you can’t charge me for that.”

Survives when:

payer was not legally bound to provide support and the transfer was structured as debt; or
the transfer was induced by deceit or mistake; or
the transfer created property rights (trust/co-ownership)

Defense: “You have no written agreement.”

Survives when:

there are admissions in messages
the pattern of dealing shows debt (repayments, accounting)
restitution theories apply

Defense: “Illegal/immoral relationship; you can’t recover.”

Survives more easily when:

the claim is framed as protection of property rights, prevention of fraud, or restitution for mistake
the plaintiff is not the party the law seeks to penalize, or public policy favors recovery (fact-dependent)

13) Practical Fact Patterns and Legal Labels

1) “Allowance” given monthly for years, no repayment terms

Usually: gift/support/natural obligation → recovery difficult.

2) “Pautang” for hospital, with later messages acknowledging debt and partial payments

Usually: loan → strong collection case.

3) Money sent for “visa processing,” later proven fake

Usually: fraud/estafa + restitution → strong, especially with receipts and lies documented.

4) You paid amortizations for a vehicle/condo titled in partner’s name, with written agreement it’s shared

Usually: trust/reconveyance and/or co-ownership → property case.

5) You paid partner’s credit card believing it was for “our household,” later found it funded unrelated luxury and you were lied to

Usually: fraud/bad faith and possibly unjust enrichment depending on proof of misrepresentation.

14) A Working Test: “Would the Partner Have a Legal Right to Keep This Money If the Relationship Didn’t Exist?”

If the only reason the partner can “justify” keeping the money is the relationship itself, recovery is hard unless there is:

a debt agreement, or
mistake, or
fraud, or
property right (trust/co-ownership).

If the partner has no legal ground independent of romance—especially where deception or a specific unfulfilled purpose is proven—recovery becomes legally plausible.

15) Bottom Line: The Legal Map in One Page

Most difficult to recover:

routine spending, allowances, lifestyle support without repayment terms

Often recoverable with evidence:

loans (utang)
purpose-specific transfers where purpose failed or was fabricated
money paid by mistake (solutio indebiti)
property bought with your money but titled to partner (trust/reconveyance)
fraud-induced transfers (civil fraud / estafa)

Key legal anchors:

Civil Code Art. 22 (unjust enrichment)
Civil Code Art. 2142 (quasi-contract principle against unjust enrichment)
Civil Code Art. 2154 (solutio indebiti)
Civil Code Arts. 19, 20, 21 (abuse of rights / acts causing damage)
Civil Code Art. 1448 and Art. 1456 concepts (resulting/constructive trusts)
Family Code Arts. 147–148 (property relations in unions in fact)
Revised Penal Code Art. 315 (estafa) and Art. 332 (family exemption for certain property crimes)

In disputes over money spent on a partner, the winning case is usually the one that most clearly proves one of these narratives: “It was a debt,” “It was a mistaken payment,” “It was money for a specific purpose that failed,” or “It bought property you are equitably entitled to,” and—when applicable—“It was obtained through deceit.”