Introduction

In the Philippines, the institution of marriage is highly protected under the 1987 Constitution and the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended). Marriage is defined as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. However, societal realities often lead to long-term partnerships where one or both individuals may still be legally married to someone else, creating complex legal situations. These arrangements, commonly referred to as live-in relationships or cohabitation, do not enjoy the same legal recognition as valid marriages. This article explores the rights of such long-term partners under Philippine law, focusing on property, support, inheritance, child custody, and other related matters. It draws from key provisions in the Family Code, the Civil Code, Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), and relevant jurisprudence from the Supreme Court.

The core challenge in these scenarios stems from the absolute prohibition against bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which criminalizes contracting a second marriage without the first being legally dissolved. Consequently, a long-term partnership involving a married individual is not considered a valid marriage or even a common-law marriage, as the latter concept does not exist in Philippine law. Instead, the relationship is treated as a mere cohabitation, with limited rights accruing to the parties involved. Rights are often contingent on proving actual contributions, the welfare of children, or protection against abuse.

Property Rights

Property rights in long-term partnerships where one partner is still married are governed primarily by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. These provisions address property regimes in unions without marriage or void marriages.

Applicability of Article 148: When one or both partners are legally incapacitated to marry (e.g., due to an existing marriage), Article 148 applies. This article establishes a regime of limited co-ownership for property acquired during the cohabitation. Unlike absolute community or conjugal partnership in valid marriages, property under Article 148 is not presumed to be jointly owned. Instead:
- Only property acquired through the actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry by both partners is considered co-owned.
- The share of each partner is proportional to their proven contribution. If no contribution can be proven for one party, they may receive nothing.
- Wages and salaries earned by either party during the cohabitation are considered their exclusive property, unless explicitly used for joint acquisitions.
- The burden of proof lies on the claiming partner to demonstrate their contribution, often through documentary evidence like receipts, bank statements, or witness testimonies.
Contrast with Article 147: If both partners were capacitated to marry but simply chose not to, Article 147 would apply, presuming equal sharing of property acquired during cohabitation. However, the presence of a prior marriage disqualifies this more favorable regime.

Jurisprudence, such as in Valdes v. RTC (G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996), emphasizes that without proof of joint effort, the married partner's legal spouse may have superior claims over properties. In cases where the cohabitation ends, the unmarried partner may file a civil action for partition and accounting under the Rules of Court to claim their share.

Properties registered solely in the married partner's name are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership with their legal spouse, unless proven otherwise. The Anti-Money Laundering Act and tax laws may also come into play if properties are acquired through illicit means, but this is beyond typical property disputes.

Support and Maintenance

Support rights for long-term partners are limited but can be invoked under specific circumstances:

No Automatic Spousal Support: Unlike in valid marriages (Article 194 of the Family Code), there is no legal obligation for spousal support in cohabitation where one is married. The married partner owes support primarily to their legal spouse and legitimate children.
Support for Children: If the partnership produces children, these are considered illegitimate under Article 165 of the Family Code. However, illegitimate children have rights to support from both parents (Article 195). The amount is determined based on the needs of the child and the means of the parents, enforceable through a court action for support.
Protection Under RA 9262: The Anti-VAWC Act provides crucial protections. It defines "battered woman syndrome" and covers economic abuse, which includes withholding financial support necessary for household needs. A long-term partner (referred to as a "woman in an intimate relationship") can seek a Protection Order from the barangay or court, compelling the married partner to provide financial support if violence or abuse is proven. This extends to psychological, physical, sexual, or economic violence. Violations can lead to criminal penalties, including imprisonment.

In Garcia v. Drilon (G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013), the Supreme Court upheld RA 9262's constitutionality, affirming its application to non-marital relationships. However, support under this law is remedial and not a perpetual right.

Rights Concerning Children

Children born from such partnerships are illegitimate but enjoy substantial rights:

Legitimation Not Possible: Unlike children of void marriages, these children cannot be legitimated by subsequent marriage of the parents, as the married partner's existing marriage bars this (Article 177).
Custody and Parental Authority: Parental authority is exercised jointly by both parents (Article 176, as amended by RA 9255). In disputes, courts prioritize the child's best interest under the "tender years" doctrine, often favoring the mother for children under seven. The unmarried partner can seek custody through habeas corpus or guardianship proceedings.
Surname and Acknowledgment: The child may use the father's surname if acknowledged voluntarily (via birth certificate or public document) or compulsorily through court action. RA 9255 allows illegitimate children to use the father's surname without implying legitimacy.
Education and Welfare: Both parents are obligated to provide education and moral guidance. Failure can lead to actions under the Child Protection Act (RA 7610).

Inheritance Rights

Inheritance is governed by the Civil Code and Family Code, with strict limitations:

No Intestate Succession as Spouse: The long-term partner has no right to inherit as a "spouse" under intestate succession (Articles 992–1001). The married partner's estate goes to their legal spouse, legitimate children, or other heirs.
Rights as Compulsory Heir: If acknowledged, illegitimate children are compulsory heirs, entitled to half the share of legitimate children (Article 895).
Testate Succession: The married partner can bequeath up to the free portion of their estate (typically half) to the long-term partner via a will. However, this is subject to challenge by the legal spouse if it impairs legitimate portions. Donations during the relationship may be considered advances on inheritance.
Exclusion Due to Adultery/Concubinage: Under Article 739, donations between partners living in adultery or concubinage are void. In Arcaba v. Batocael (G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001), the Court voided properties transferred to a paramour.

Criminal and Civil Liabilities

Engaging in such a partnership exposes parties to liabilities:

Adultery and Concubinage: The married partner (if female) commits adultery (Article 333, RPC), while a male commits concubinage (Article 334). Penalties include imprisonment. The unmarried partner may be charged as a co-accused.
Civil Actions: The legal spouse can file for legal separation (Article 55), annulment if grounds exist, or damages for moral injury.
Nullity of Agreements: Any "marriage" contract is void ab initio (Article 40), leading to no marital rights.

Termination of the Partnership

Upon separation, there is no "divorce" equivalent. Parties can simply part ways, but disputes over property or children require court intervention. Mediation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is encouraged for amicable settlements.

Conclusion

Long-term partnerships where one spouse remains married offer precarious legal standing in the Philippines, emphasizing the sanctity of marriage. Rights are fragmented, focusing on proven contributions for property, child welfare, and protection against abuse. Partners are advised to seek legal counsel to document contributions and protect interests, potentially through affidavits or separate property agreements. Reforms, such as proposed divorce laws, could alter this landscape, but as of current law, caution and awareness are essential to navigate these relationships.