Short answer. No — such a donation is void. Article 87 of the Family Code voids every donation between spouses during the marriage, except moderate gifts on the occasion of any family rejoicing, and expressly extends the prohibition to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
What the law says
Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing.
Family Code, Article 87 — Donations Between Spouses Are Void. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
Family Code, Article 87 — Donations Between Spouses Are Void. Read the full provision →
The prohibition reaches live-in couples by design
Article 87 begins with married couples — every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void — and then closes the loophole a cohabiting couple might hope to slip through: the prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. Were it otherwise, couples who avoided marrying would enjoy more freedom to transfer property between themselves than married couples, and the policy behind the ban could be defeated by simply not marrying. The law refuses to reward the omission.
Why the law voids these gifts
The prohibition guards against pressures peculiar to intimate relationships. One partner may exploit the other's affection or dependence to strip them of property; transfers between partners can also be used to place assets beyond the reach of creditors or of children entitled to inherit. Notice how wide the language sweeps: not only donations but any grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect. Dressing the transfer up — an indirect route through a relative, a sale at a token price masking a gift — engages the same prohibition, because the article targets the gratuitous advantage, whatever form it takes.
The exception is deliberately small
What survives is narrow: moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. Birthday and anniversary presents, gifts at a christening or a family celebration — ordinary tokens of affection remain valid, provided they are moderate. The article does not fix a peso figure; what counts as moderate is measured against the couple's circumstances, and a gift generous enough to amount to a real transfer of wealth is exactly what the prohibition exists to catch. A house or a parcel of land given mid-relationship does not become a birthday present by being handed over on a birthday.
What void means for you
A void donation is treated as never having transferred anything: the property remains the donor's, no matter how much time has passed, and the defect is not cured by delivery, registration or good faith. If you are holding property your partner donated to you during the relationship, its vulnerability is worth assessing now rather than when heirs or creditors attack the transfer later. And if you and your partner want to secure each other's future, raise the lawful routes with counsel — the one route the law forecloses is the mid-relationship gift, and building plans on a void transfer helps neither of you.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Nicxon L. Perez, Jr. vs. Avegail Perez-Senerpida, assisted by her husband Mr. Senerprida, G.R. No. 233365, March 24, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cirila Arcaba vs. Erlinda Tabancura Vda. De Batocael, et al, G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Edgardo Santos, et al. vs. Maria D. Santos and/or her Successors-in-interest, G.R. No. 250774, June 16, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Emilie B. Sumbad, et al. vs. Court of Appeals & Eduard Okoren, et al, G.R. No. 106060, June 21, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →