What property rights do live-in partners have in the Philippines?

Two different rules, depending on whether you could have married each other

Philippine law does not extend marital property rules to unmarried couples, but it does not ignore them either. Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code create two different regimes, and which one applies depends on whether the partners were free to marry each other. Article 147 covers couples who could have married — no existing marriage, no legal impediment — but did not, or whose own marriage was later declared void. Article 148 covers everyone else, most often a couple where one partner was already validly married to someone other than their live-in partner. The distinction matters, because the two articles divide property very differently.

Under Article 147: wages and jointly-acquired property split equally

Under Article 147, the law leans on presumptions. Wages and salaries earned by either partner are owned by both in equal shares, and property either partner acquires through work or industry is governed by co-ownership rules. Absent proof otherwise, property acquired during the cohabitation is presumed to come from joint effort and owned equally — a partner who ran the household rather than earning outside income still counts as a joint contributor. The co-ownership is tied to the period of actual cohabitation, so what one partner acquires after the parties genuinely separate falls outside it.

Under Article 148: only what you can prove you actually contributed

Article 148 is stricter, because it governs the situation the law treats more cautiously — typically where one partner was already married to someone else. There is no presumption of joint effort. Only property both partners actually contributed money, property or industry toward is co-owned, in proportion to what each put in. The burden that follows is evidentiary, and it is the whole ballgame: a partner claiming a share must show what they actually contributed, rather than rely on the relationship itself.

What this means if the relationship ends

Practically, a live-in partner who wants to protect a property claim needs to document their contribution — bank transfers, receipts, proof of income used toward a purchase — rather than rely on having lived together for years. If a partner in bad faith knew of an existing valid marriage to someone else, their share in the co-ownership can be forfeited in favor of the couple's common children once the cohabitation ends. None of this extends beyond property; it says nothing about inheritance, support, or custody, which are governed by separate rules.

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.

• Simon R. Paterno vs. Dina Marie Lomongo Paterno, G.R. No. 213687, January 8, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Alain M. Diño vs. Ma. Caridad L. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Lucila David and the Heirs of Rene F. Aguas, namely: Princess Luren D. Aguas, G.R. No. 241036, January 26, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Lani Nayve-Pua vs. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 253450, January 22, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Family Code, Article 147 — Property of Unions Without Marriage (Both Capacitated)
• Family Code, Article 148 — Property of Unions Without Marriage (Not Capacitated)