Short answer. No. Article 1345 of the Civil Code distinguishes relative simulation, where parties conceal their true agreement, from absolute simulation, where the parties never intend to be bound at all. Since you and your partner did intend to be bound to each other, your arrangement fits relative rather than absolute simulation — a materially different situation under the law.
What the law says
Simulation of a contract may be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true agreement.
Civil Code, Article 1345 — Simulation of Contracts. Read the full provision →
The one distinction Article 1345 draws
Article 1345 sorts every simulated contract into exactly two categories, based on a single question: did the parties actually mean to be bound to each other? Simulation of a contract may be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true agreement. Everything else about how a simulated contract is treated flows from which of these two categories it falls into, which is why the label matters.
Why your arrangement is not an absolute simulation
Absolute simulation describes a contract that is a sham from the start — the document exists, but the parties do not intend to be bound at all, to each other or to anyone else. There is no real agreement anywhere underneath it, only an appearance created for outsiders. That is not what you describe: you and your partner meant to be bound to each other from the outset, and only wanted the terms of that binding arrangement kept from other people.
Why that makes it a relative simulation instead
What you describe matches the second category: the latter, when the parties conceal their true agreement. A relative simulation still has a real, intended agreement between the parties — it is simply hidden behind a different document or a different set of stated terms shown to others. The contract you signed to present publicly is not fictitious in the way an absolute simulation is; it coexists with the actual arrangement you and your partner meant to be bound by.
Why the label is not just semantics
Article 1345 exists as a threshold classification precisely because absolute and relative simulation are not treated the same way in law. A contract where nobody meant to be bound at all is a very different problem from one where real, intended obligations exist but were concealed from others. Because your arrangement falls into the relative category, it does not follow the same path as an absolute sham simply for having been kept confidential from outsiders.
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.
- Edward C. Ciacho vs. Spouses Adolfo T. De Guia And Fe Alma V. De Guia ; and Bayani S. Cerilla , Substituted By His Heirs, Mary Bernadette G. Cerilla and Byatres Mari Cerilla-Bohol, G.R. No. 259051, February 26, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Emerson P. Valenzuela, Valentino P. Valenzuela, and Marty P. Valenzuela vs. Sps. Danilo Pabilani and Eleonor Pabilani, Sps. Leticia and Joseph Mattingly, G.R. No. 241330, December 5, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Felix Chingkoe and Rosita Chingkoe vs. Faustino Chingkoe and Gloria Chingkoe, G.R. No. 244076, March 16, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- ATCI Overseas Corporation and Amalia G. Ikdal vs. Asset Pool A (SPV-AMC), Inc, G.R. No. 250523, June 28, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →