Text of the provision
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 [sic] 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.
(144a)
Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, approved July 6, 1987. The Code took effect on August 3, 1988 (Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005). Reproduced in full. In the fifth sentence the official text reads "his or her shall be forfeited," apparently omitting the word "share"; it is marked [sic] and reproduced as found. Where the Arellano Law Foundation (LawPhil) print shows "in both faith" in the final sentence, this is an evident typographical error for "in bad faith," the reading carried by ChanRobles and required by the sense of the provision.
What this article means
Article 148 is the stricter companion to Article 147. It applies to cohabitation that does not fall under Article 147 — most commonly where the parties were not capacitated to marry each other, because one of them was already validly married to someone else (an adulterous or bigamous cohabitation).
Here the co-ownership is far narrower. Only property acquired through the parties' actual joint contribution of money, property or industry is owned in common, and only in proportion to what each actually contributed. There is no homemaker presumption: unlike Article 147, care of the household is not treated as a contribution. A party who did not put in money, property or industry gets no share.
Where the guilty party's share goes
The article then routes the share of a party who is entangled in a valid marriage: if one cohabitant is validly married to another person, that person's share in the co-ownership accrues to the absolute community or conjugal partnership of the valid marriage — it does not stay with the illicit relationship. If the bad-faith party is not validly married to anyone, that share is forfeited under the rule in Article 147. These forfeiture rules apply even where both parties acted in bad faith.
A note on the text
One sentence of the official text reads "his or her shall be forfeited," which appears to omit the word "share"; we reproduce it as found and mark it [sic]. Separately, the LawPhil print renders the final sentence as "in both faith," which is an evident printing error for "in bad faith" — the reading carried by ChanRobles and the only one the provision can sensibly bear. We reproduce the corrected "bad faith."
Related provisions
- Article 147 — the more generous regime where both parties were capacitated to marry each other.
Cases interpreting this article
- The leading authorities distinguishing Article 148 from Article 147 (in particular, the requirement of actual contribution and the absence of a homemaker presumption) will be added here as each is verified against primary sources.