Live-in partners do not automatically share property the way married spouses do — there is no conjugal partnership or absolute community. Instead, the Family Code supplies two separate co-ownership rules. Article 147 applies when both partners were legally free to marry each other, and presumes property acquired during the cohabitation was earned jointly. Article 148 applies to everyone else — most commonly where one partner is already validly married to someone else — and requires actual proof of each party’s contribution before any co-ownership share is recognized.
Two Different Rules, Depending on Capacity to Marry
The Family Code does not treat all live-in arrangements the same. The dividing line is whether the couple could have validly married each other at the time. Article 147 governs couples who were both capacitated to marry each other but simply chose not to, or whose marriage turned out to be void for some reason other than that capacity (for example, a marriage later voided for lack of a marriage license). Article 148 governs every other cohabitation — most importantly, where one or both partners were already validly married to someone else at the time, making an eventual marriage between the live-in partners themselves impossible.
Article 147: Both Free to Marry Each Other
Under Article 147, wages and salaries earned by each partner are owned by them in equal shares, and property acquired by either or both through their work or industry during the cohabitation is governed by the rules on co-ownership. Critically, the law creates a presumption: absent proof to the contrary, property acquired while the couple lived together is presumed obtained through their joint efforts and owned in equal shares — even for a partner who did not contribute money, if that partner’s efforts consisted of caring for the family and household, which the law deems a form of joint contribution. Neither partner may sell or encumber their share of the common property without the other’s consent, and this presumption is what makes Article 147 relatively favorable to a partner without independent income.
Article 148: One or Both Not Free to Marry
Article 148 is markedly stricter. Only property that both parties actually, jointly contributed — money, property, or industry — is owned in common, and only in proportion to each party’s proven contribution. There is a presumption that contributions and shares are equal only in the absence of proof to the contrary, and unlike Article 147, homemaking alone does not count as a contribution creating a share. If one partner is validly married to someone else, that partner’s share in whatever co-ownership does arise accrues to the existing marriage’s absolute community or conjugal partnership rather than staying with the live-in partner, and if that same partner acted in bad faith (knew of the impediment), their share is subject to forfeiture rules under the law.
The Forfeiture Rule Under Article 147
Article 147 adds a specific consequence for a cohabitation that ends because one partner acted in bad faith under a void marriage: “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.” If there are no common children (or all waive or default on that share), the forfeited share passes to the innocent party’s surviving descendants, and only in the absence of any descendants does it belong to the innocent party outright. This forfeiture takes effect upon termination of the cohabitation, and exists precisely to prevent a partner who knew the marriage was void, or who caused it to be void, from profiting equally from property built up during a relationship the other partner entered in good faith.
Why This Matters in Practice
The practical gap between the two articles is significant. A partner relying on Article 147 benefits from a presumption of equal ownership even without documentary proof of financial contribution. A partner under Article 148 — typically someone who was the “other man” or “other woman” in a relationship where a partner was already married — must affirmatively prove an actual contribution of money, property, or industry to claim any share at all, and even then, that share may be reduced or redirected depending on bad faith and the existence of a prior valid marriage.
Death, Separation, and What Survives
Property rights under both articles are distinct from inheritance. A live-in partner is not a compulsory heir of the other under the law on succession — only a legal spouse, legitimate and illegitimate children, and other blood relatives inherit by intestate succession. What Articles 147 and 148 protect is the partner’s existing co-ownership share in property acquired during the relationship, which the surviving or separating partner may claim regardless of the inheritance rules, since that share was already theirs before either partner’s death or the relationship’s end.
Practical Takeaways
- If both partners could have validly married each other, Article 147 applies and creates a presumption of equal ownership of property acquired during cohabitation;
- If one partner was already married to someone else, Article 148 applies and requires proof of actual contribution before any share is recognized;
- A live-in partner is not an heir under intestate succession — a will, insurance beneficiary designation, or a documented co-ownership share is what actually protects that partner;
- Keep records of financial contributions to property acquired during the relationship, especially under Article 148, where the presumption of equal shares is weaker and contribution must be shown.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do live-in partners automatically own property equally? Only if both were legally capacitated to marry each other, under Family Code Article 147, which presumes equal ownership of property acquired during the cohabitation. If one partner was already validly married to someone else, the stricter Article 148 applies instead, requiring proof of actual contribution.
Does taking care of the household count as a contribution? Under Article 147, yes — a partner whose efforts consisted of caring for the family and household is deemed to have jointly contributed to property acquired during the cohabitation. Article 148 does not extend this presumption to homemaking alone.
Can a live-in partner inherit from the other partner who dies without a will? No. A live-in partner is not a compulsory or intestate heir under Philippine succession law. What survives is the partner's own co-ownership share in property acquired during the relationship under Articles 147 or 148, which is separate from inheritance.
What happens if one partner was married to someone else the whole time? Under Article 148, that partner's share in whatever co-ownership arises accrues to the absolute community or conjugal partnership of their existing valid marriage, rather than remaining with the live-in partner, and may be further reduced if that partner acted in bad faith.
This commentary is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult a licensed attorney.
If you have questions about your rights or options under Philippine law, our firm is available to assist. You may reach us via Viber or WhatsApp, call us at 0995 433 5550, or send an email to vivasnobles@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.