COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE (LIVE-
IN RELATIONSHIPS) IN THE
PHILIPPINES
Money is [one of] the root[s] of all kinds of
relationship problems, says an article at
the Family Relationships site. In my
modest years of law practice, I can say
that among the most bitter confrontations
(in and out of court) relate to
property/money/inheritance issues
between members of the family.
Under the Family Code of the Philippines,
property matters between the husband
and wife are set forth in relative detail,
e.g., the forms and requisites of a
marriage settlement or ante-nuptial
agreement, donations by reason of
marriage, the “default” property regime of
absolute community of property (vis-a-vis
separation of property, and conjugal
partnership of gains), support for the
spouse and the children, and the effects
of legal separation and annulment of
marriage on the spouses’ properties. I’m
still trying to decide if I should further
discuss any of these topics (also, the
rules on succession/inheritance are
treated in other laws/issuances, and may
be discussed separately in other entries).
For this entry, allow me to focus on
something that appears to be increasingly
common nowadays — the “live-in”
relationship, also called “common-law
marriage“. This is governed by Article 147
of the Family Code, which reads:
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other, live
exclusively with each other as husband
and wife without the benefit of marriage
or under a void marriage, their wages and
salaries shall be owned by them in equal
shares and the property acquired by both
of them through their work or industry
shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary,
properties acquired while they lived
together shall be presumed to have been
obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry, and shall be owned by them in
equal shares. For purposes of this Article,
a party who did not participate in the
acquisition by the other party of any
property shall be deemed to have
contributed jointly in the acquisition
thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in
the care and maintenance of the family
and of the household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by
acts inter vivos of his or her share in the
property acquired during cohabitation and
owned in common, without the consent of
the other, until after the termination of
their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void
marriage is in good faith, the share of the
party in bad faith in the co-ownership
shall be forfeited in favor of their common
children. In case of default of or waiver by
any or all of the common children or their
descendants, each vacant share shall
belong to the respective surviving
descendants. In the absence of
descendants, such share shall belong to
the innocent party. In all cases, the
forfeiture shall take place upon
termination of the cohabitation.
The Family Code (Art. 147) recognizes,
and expressly governs the property
relations in, the relationship where a man
and a woman live exclusively with each
other just like a husband and wife, but
without the benefit of marriage (or when
the marriage is void). It is required,
however, that both must be capacitated,
or has no legal impediment, to marry
each other (for instance, couples under a
“live-in” relationship will not be covered
under this provision if one or both has a
prior existing marriage). In this situation,
property acquired by both spouses
through their work and industry shall be
governed by the rules on equal co-
ownership. Any property acquired during
the union is presumed to have been
obtained through their joint efforts. As to
the homemaker, or the one who cared for
and maintained the family household,
he/she is still considered to have jointly
contributed to the acquisition of a
property, even if he/she did not directly
participate in the property’s acquisition.
How about if one or both partners are not
capacitated to marry, as when one (or
both) has an existing or prior marriage
which has not been annulled/declared
void? This is covered under Art. 148 of
the Family Code, which reads:
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not
falling under the preceding Article, only
the properties acquired by both of the
parties through their actual joint
contribution of money, property, or
industry shall be owned by them in
common in proportion to their respective
contributions. In the absence of proof to
the contrary, their contributions and
corresponding shares are presumed to be
equal. The same rule and presumption
shall apply to joint deposits of money and
evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to
another, his or her share in the co-
ownership shall accrue to the absolute
community or conjugal partnership
existing in such valid marriage. If the
party who acted in bad faith is not validly
married to another, his or her shall be
forfeited in the manner provided in the
last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall
likewise apply even if both parties are in
bad faith.
In other words, under Art. 148, only the
properties acquired through their
ACTUAL JOINT contribution of money,
property or industry shall be owned by
them in common (in proportion to their
actual contributions). There is no
presumption that properties were
acquired through the partners’ joint effort.
Please also note that if one has a prior
marriage, his/her share shall be forfeited
in favor of that previous marriage (as an
aside, the children under the second
relationship shall be considered as
illegitimate).
So, as previously stated in this Forum,
put your (first) house in order first. No
need to rush; love is patient. It can wait.
ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
TO USE THE SURNAME OF FATHER
(ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1,
REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 9255)
[Prior to the enactment of Republic Act
No. 9255, an illegitimate child, or a child
born outside of a valid wedlock, may
ONLY use the surname of the mother
and, regardless of any circumstances, is
prohibited from using the father’s
surname. Before the amendment, Article
176 of the Family Code provides that:
“Illegitimate children shall use the
surname and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother, and shall be
entitled to support in conformity with this
Code.” As the law now stands, there is an
OPTION to use the surname of the
mother or, if the required documents are
submitted, the surname of the father.
JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF A
FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE
Divorce is not allowed in the Philippines
and divorce secured anywhere by a
Filipino is not recognized in this
jurisdiction.We already have a number of
discussions on this (read more here and
here). In certain instances, however, a
divorce validly secured abroad by a non-
Filipino may be recognized here in the
Philippines.
What are circumstances that would make
Article (Family Code) applicable?

We have a basic discussion on Article 26
of the Family Code (click here: Divorce
and Annulment in the Philippines).
Included in that discussion are the two
elements that must be shown before the
second paragraph of Article 26 is applied:
There is a valid marriage that has been
celebrated between a Filipino citizen and
a foreigner; and
A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
Is this provision applicable to former
Filipinos?
Yes. See the discussion here.
This law provides that the divorce must
be secured by the foreigner-spouse.
What if the foreigner-spouse continually
maltreats the Filipino/Filipina spouse, isn’t
it unfair that the Filipino/Filipina can’t
initiate divorce?
It may be unfair, but that’s the law,
consistent with the State’s policy of not
allowing divorce for Filipinos. This doesn’t
mean, however, that the Filipino/Filipina
has no other recourse. If the
circumstances fall under the grounds for
annulment/declaration of nullity, then the
marriage could still be annulled or
declared null and void from the beginning.
If there’s already a divorce validly
secured abroad (by the foreigner-spouse
or the Filipino spouse who became a
foreign citizen, losing his/her Filipino
citizenship in the process), can the
Filipino spouse immediately remarry?
No. The existence of a valid divorce
decree, however, does not automatically
entitle the Filipino to remarry in the
Philippines. The foreign divorce decree
must be judicially recognized in the
Philippines. This means that the proper
action or petition must be filed in a
Philippine court. For purposes of re-
marriage, the divorce validly secured
abroad is not automatically recognized
here in the Philippines.
Isn’t it enough that I already forwarded
the divorce decree to the Philippine
Embassy (or the Department of Foreign
Affairs) and the National Statistics Office
(NSO)?
No. The foreign divorce decree must be
recognized here in the Philippines; a
process which may only be done through
the courts.
Why should we waste money in filing a
petition in court for the recognition of the
divorce decree?
This is the requirement of law,
unfortunately. The divorce decree must
be proven, just like any fact, in court. The
presentation of the divorce decree is
insufficient. Proof of its authenticity and
due execution must be presented. This
necessarily entails proving the applicable
laws of the jurisdiction where the
foreigner-spouse (who could be a former
Filipino) is a national. One of the
requirements under Article 26 is that the
decree of divorce must be valid according
to the national law of the foreigner.
For instance, we have discussed
(“Divorce and Annulment in the
Philippines“) that a Filipino – wherever
he/she may be located in the world – is
governed by Philippine laws on marriage.
This means that while he/she can secure
a divorce outside the Philippines, such
divorce is NOT recognized in the
Philippines. The same article also
contains a discussion on the effect of
losing Filipino citizenship vis-a-vis
divorce. If a Filipino is naturalized as a
foreign citizen and, in the process, loses
his/her Filipino citizenship, such former
Filipino can validly seek a divorce abroad
and the divorce is recognized in the
Philippines. In other words, after
complying with the procedure in having
the foreign decree of divorce judicially
recognized (through a court action) here
in the Philippines, the Filipino spouse
may validly remarry.
LOVE AND LAW
It may seem improper to talk about love in
a legal forum, particularly considering that
among the most popular articles relate to
annulment, legal separation and divorce.
Still, Valentines, February 14, is just
around the corner and there could be no
serious objections why we could not talk
about this “gentle and universal emotion.”
Besides, even the Supreme Court had
occasions to talk about love —
“Private respondent [the school] utterly
failed to show that petitioner [30-year old
lady teacher] took advantage of her
position to court her student [16-year old].
If the two eventually fell in love, despite
the disparity in their ages and academic
levels, this only lends substance to the
truism that the heart has reasons of its
own which reason does not know. But,
definitely, yielding to this gentle and
universal emotion is not to be so casually
equated with immorality. The deviation of
the circumstances of their marriage from
the usual societal pattern cannot be
considered as a defiance of (Concerned Employee vs. Glenda
contemporary social mores.” (Chua-Qua Espiritu Mayor, AM No. P-02-1564, 23
vs. Clave, G.R. No. L-49549, 30 August November 2004)
1990)
“Marital union is a two-way process. An
“We cannot castigate a man for seeking expressive interest in each other’s
out the partner of his dreams, for feelings at a time it is needed by the other
marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond can go a long way in deepening the
which should be entered into because of marital relationship. Marriage is definitely
love, not for any other reason.” (Patricia not for children but for two consenting
Figueroa vs. Simeon Barranco, Jr., GR adults who view the relationship with love
No. 97369, 31 July 1997) amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice
and a continuing commitment to
“The nuptial vows which solemnly intone compromise, conscious of its value as a
the matrimonial promise of love ‘(f)or sublime social institution.” (Chi Ming Tsoi
better or for worse, for richer or for vs. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao- Tsoi,
poorer, in sickness and in health, till GR No. 119190, 16 January 1997)
death do us part,’ are sometimes easier
said than done, for many a marital union
figuratively ends on the reefs of
matrimonial shoals. In the case now
before us for appellate review, the
marriage literally ended under
circumstances which the criminal law,
disdainful of romanticism, bluntly calls the
felony of parricide.” (People of the
Philippines vs. Ruben Takbobo, GR No.
102984, 30 June 1993)
“The Court, like all well-meaning persons,
has no desire to dash romantic fancies,
yet in the exercise of its duty, is all too
willing when necessary to raise the wall
that tears Pyramus and Thisbe asunder.”