Can a “Common-Law Spouse” Be Evicted From the Home?

1) Start with the most important point: there is no “common-law marriage” in the Philippines

In Philippine law, living together for years—even having children—does not create a marriage. A live-in partner is not a “spouse” in the way the Family Code uses the term, and generally does not get the automatic rights a lawful पति/ पत्नी would have (e.g., spousal inheritance rights, conjugal partnership rights by default, the “family home” concept tied to marriage).

That said, live-in partners can have enforceable rights—especially property rights—depending on ownership, how the home was acquired, and what each partner contributed.

2) The home is the key: “Who owns it?” determines eviction risk

Whether a live-in partner can be evicted usually depends on which of these situations applies:

A. The home is owned by one partner alone (exclusive property)

This commonly happens when:

the house/condo was bought before cohabitation, or
it was inherited or donated to one partner, or
it’s titled solely in one partner’s name and the other cannot prove co-ownership or a legal right to possess.

General rule: the non-owner partner has no automatic right to stay indefinitely. But the owner still cannot simply throw them out without consequences (see “self-help eviction” below) and may need to follow legal process.

Exception/Qualification: the non-owner may still have a claim if they can prove:

they paid for part of the acquisition (direct contribution), or
the property was acquired during cohabitation under rules that create co-ownership (discussed in Section 3).

B. The home was acquired during cohabitation (possible co-ownership)

Even if only one name is on the title, the other partner may have a co-ownership share under the Civil Code rules applied through the Family Code (Articles 147 and 148).

If the non-titled partner is truly a co-owner, the titled partner generally cannot evict a co-owner through ejectment as if the co-owner were a mere “squatter” or guest. The dispute becomes one of co-ownership, accounting, or partition rather than simple eviction.

C. The home is rented (lease)

If the lease contract is under one partner’s name, the non-signing partner is usually treated as an occupant by the lessee’s permission. If the lessee leaves or withdraws consent, the non-lessee partner may be exposed to ejectment—subject to due process and any applicable rent/tenancy protections.

D. The home is owned by a third party (parents, relatives, employer, etc.)

If the couple is merely staying in someone else’s home, their right to stay depends on the owner’s consent. Once consent is withdrawn, continued stay can become unlawful—again, eviction must still respect legal process.

E. The home is part of one partner’s existing marriage (conjugal/community property with a legal spouse)

If one partner is legally married to someone else, the live-in partner typically has no spousal rights over the married person’s marital property. Occupancy can be challenged by the legal spouse and may expose the live-in arrangement to additional legal complications. Property rights, if any, tend to be limited to provable contributions (see Article 148).

3) Property rights of live-in partners: Articles 147 and 148 (the “co-ownership rules”)

Philippine law recognizes that people cohabit and acquire property together—even without marriage. The Civil/Family Code framework provides rules on who owns what.

Article 147 — Cohabitation with NO legal impediment to marry

This applies when:

both partners are single, widowed, or otherwise legally free to marry each other during the relationship.

Effect (simplified):

Properties acquired during the union (through work, industry, wages, salary, and acquisitions during cohabitation) are generally treated as co-owned.
There is a strong presumption of equal shares, even if only one partner earned money—because contribution may include care and maintenance of the family/household, not only cash.

Practical meaning for the home:

If the home was acquired during cohabitation while both were free to marry, the non-titled partner may still claim a 50% interest (or at least a substantial share), provided the acquisition falls within Article 147’s scope.
If the non-titled partner is a co-owner, eviction becomes legally harder: you cannot treat a co-owner as a mere intruder.

Article 148 — Cohabitation WITH a legal impediment to marry

This applies when:

one or both partners were married to someone else, or otherwise not legally capacitated to marry each other during cohabitation.

Effect (simplified):

Only properties acquired through the partners’ actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are co-owned.
No presumption of equal sharing; shares are in proportion to proven contributions.
Household services alone typically do not create the same broad presumption of co-ownership as under Article 147.

Practical meaning for the home:

If the non-owner partner cannot prove direct contribution (payments, construction costs, documented funding, etc.), they may have little to no property claim to resist eviction.

4) “Can I be evicted?” — a scenario-based guide

Scenario 1: You are NOT on the title, and the home was owned before you moved in

Your stay is usually by the owner-partner’s tolerance/permission.
Once permission is withdrawn, the owner may demand you leave.
If you refuse, the owner may file an ejectment case (typically unlawful detainer).

Bottom line: you can usually be removed through legal process unless you prove an independent right (co-ownership, lease rights, court protection order, etc.).

Scenario 2: The home was acquired during cohabitation and you can claim co-ownership

If Article 147 applies, you may claim co-ownership even if not on title.
If Article 148 applies, you must prove direct contribution.

Bottom line: a genuine co-owner generally cannot be “evicted like a stranger.” The dispute is more properly resolved through partition/accounting and determination of shares.

Scenario 3: The home is rented and your name is not in the lease

You’re usually a permitted occupant.
If the lessee withdraws consent or moves out, your legal footing becomes weak.

Bottom line: high eviction exposure unless you become a recognized lessee/occupant with rights under the lease or law.

Scenario 4: There is violence, threats, or coercive control

Even if you don’t own the property, the law may protect your continued residence through protective remedies—especially for women and children.

Bottom line: eviction can be blocked or reversed by protection orders and criminal/civil remedies.

5) The correct legal process matters: “Self-help eviction” is risky and often unlawful

Even if someone owns the home, forcibly removing a live-in partner can create legal exposure.

What “self-help” looks like

changing locks without court process,
throwing belongings out,
shutting off utilities to drive someone out,
using intimidation or physical force,
preventing entry to retrieve personal items.

Why it’s dangerous legally

Depending on the facts, this can lead to:

criminal complaints (e.g., coercion-related offenses, threats, physical injuries, violations of special laws),
civil damages, and/or
adverse findings in later property or custody disputes.

In practice, the legally safer route is demand + proper proceedings.

6) Ejectment in the Philippines (how eviction is actually done)

When a person is occupying property without a valid right (or after tolerance is withdrawn), the typical remedy is an ejectment case in the first-level courts:

Two common ejectment actions

Unlawful detainer – when the occupant’s possession was originally lawful (e.g., invited/allowed) but became unlawful after the right was terminated (e.g., demand to vacate).
Forcible entry – when possession was obtained through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

Live-in partner cases often fall under unlawful detainer, because the partner originally moved in with consent.

Usual steps (high-level)

Written demand to vacate (and often to pay reasonable compensation if applicable)
Barangay conciliation may be required in many disputes between individuals living in the same city/municipality (subject to exceptions)
Filing of the ejectment case in the Municipal Trial Court / Metropolitan Trial Court
Summary procedure: hearings, judgment, possible execution, subject to rules on appeal/stay.

Important: Ejectment is primarily about possession, not final ownership. Even if an owner “wins” possession, a separate case may still be needed to finally settle co-ownership shares, reimbursements, or title issues.

7) Protection for women and children: the strongest “right to stay” even without title (RA 9262)

For many live-in disputes, the turning point is whether the situation involves violence or abuse. Under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (RA 9262), courts may issue protection orders that can:

remove/exclude the abusive partner (respondent) from the residence, even if the respondent owns it;
prohibit contact, threats, or harassment;
grant temporary custody of children and support;
restrain acts of economic abuse (including deprivation of financial support or controlling access to resources).

Why this matters for “eviction”

If the live-in partner is a woman (or the case involves women/children protected by RA 9262) and abuse is present, the abusive partner may be the one ordered to leave—and the victim may be allowed to remain in the home temporarily for safety, stability, and child welfare.

This is one of the clearest legal bases for a non-owner to lawfully remain in the home despite ownership claims—because the remedy is grounded in protection and public policy.

8) Children change the picture: custody, support, and practical residence arrangements

Children of live-in partners are generally illegitimate unless legitimized by the parents’ subsequent valid marriage (and other legal requirements). Regardless of legitimacy:

the child has a right to support;
custody and visitation are decided by the child’s welfare and applicable rules;
the home issue often becomes intertwined with custody/support arrangements.

Even when one partner owns the home, courts may consider living arrangements that minimize disruption to children—especially where violence, abandonment, or neglect is alleged. This may affect temporary possession or who is ordered to stay away, depending on the legal remedy pursued.

9) Personal property and belongings: you can’t just keep or destroy them

Even if someone must leave the residence, the departing partner’s personal belongings generally remain their property. Common conflict points include:

furniture bought during cohabitation,
appliances, gadgets, vehicles,
documents (IDs, passports, birth certificates),
items for children.

When ownership is disputed (especially for items bought during cohabitation), the issue may require:

proof of purchase,
agreements,
accounting under Articles 147/148 principles, or
civil action if necessary.

Withholding essential documents or children’s necessities can create legal exposure, especially if used to control or punish.

10) Common misconceptions (and the legal reality)

“We lived together for 7/10/15 years—so I have the same rights as a spouse.”

Not automatically. Cohabitation length alone does not create marriage. Rights come from property rules, contracts, possession law, and protective statutes, not from a “common-law marriage” status.

“My name is not on the title, so I have zero rights.”

Not always. If Article 147 applies, co-ownership can exist even without your name on the title. If Article 148 applies, you may still have rights if you can prove actual contribution.

“I own the house, so I can kick my partner out anytime.”

Ownership helps, but process matters, and abuse/harassment can reverse the situation through protection orders. Co-ownership claims can also block simple eviction.

“If I leave the house, I lose my property share.”

Leaving does not automatically waive ownership rights. Property shares are determined by law and evidence, not mere physical occupancy—though delay and lack of documentation can make claims harder.

11) Evidence that typically matters in real disputes

Because these cases often turn on proof, the following are commonly important:

Transfer Certificate of Title/Condominium Certificate of Title, tax declarations
Deed of sale, contracts to sell, receipts, bank records
Proof of amortization payments (loan statements, remittance records)
Construction/renovation receipts, contractor agreements
Proof of relationship status (to determine Article 147 vs 148: CENOMAR, marriage certificates)
Evidence of household contributions and child-rearing (more relevant under Article 147)
Evidence of abuse (messages, medical records, barangay blotter, witness statements)
Lease contracts and landlord communications (for rentals)

12) Practical legal outcomes you commonly see in Philippine live-in “eviction” conflicts

Outcome 1: Ejectment succeeds (non-owner must leave)

Likely when:

the home is clearly exclusive property of one partner,
there is no credible co-ownership claim,
no protective order applies,
demand and proper proceedings were followed.

Outcome 2: Ejectment is denied or stalled because the occupant is a co-owner

Likely when:

the home was acquired during cohabitation, and
Article 147 presumption or Article 148 contributions create a credible co-ownership issue.

The case may shift toward determining shares, reimbursement, or partition.

Outcome 3: The titled/abusive partner is ordered out (protection order)

Likely when:

abuse/violence/economic control is established within the scope of protective laws, especially involving women and children.

Outcome 4: Settlement / partition / buy-out

Often the most realistic long-term resolution where:

both have contributed, and
continuing co-occupancy is no longer workable.

13) Key takeaways

The Philippines does not recognize common-law marriage; cohabitation does not make you a legal spouse.
A live-in partner’s ability to resist eviction depends mainly on:
1. ownership/title,
2. whether co-ownership exists under Article 147 or 148,
3. whether the case involves abuse, triggering protection orders, and
4. whether the other party follows lawful ejectment procedures instead of self-help.
Even without title, a live-in partner may have enforceable rights—especially to a share in property acquired during the relationship—if the legal conditions and proof are present.