Legal Opinion

This legal opinion is in connection with a client who recently

asked for legal advice regarding the property regime that would affect
couples who are living together without the benefit of marriage.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

1. The couple was living together as husband and wife for years;
2. The couple does not have any legal impediment that would have
affected their status, if they have decided to get married;
3. As a consequence of their living situation, 2 children were born;
4. The couple was able to acquire several properties, of unknown
valuation, during the time of their cohabitation;
5. It seems like the husband has been disposing the properties,
through his family members, without the knowledge of the
client.

Because of the abovementioned facts, I have come to conclude

and recommend the following:

Article 147 of the Family Code has provided that:

“ When a man and a woman who are

capacitated to marry each other, live
exclusively with each other as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or under a
void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be
owned by them in equal shares and the
property acquired by both of them through
 their work or industry shall be governed by the
rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary,

properties acquired while they lived together
shall be presumed to have been obtained by
their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall
be owned by them in equal shares. For
purposes of this Article, a party who did not
participate in the acquisition by the other party
of any property shall be deemed to have
contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if
the formers efforts consisted in the care and
maintenance of the family and of the
household. “

For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following

elements must be present:

1. The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each

other;

2. They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife;

and

3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their

marriage is void1.

1
Dio vs Dio G.R. No. 178044, 19 January 2011
 As mentioned by the client, she has been living together with the
other party exclusively. They are not bound by marriage and they
have no legal impediment ( e.g. one of them is married to another
person) to marry each other.

Article 147 of the Family Code is applicable in their situation.

Hence, the rules on co-ownership will govern their property regime.
All the properties acquired by them during the time that they have
cohabited are presumed to be owned by them in equal shares.

If the client has neither worked or actually contributed to the

acquisition of the said properties, it is still presumed that those
properties were acquired by them through their joint efforts, unless
there is proof telling otherwise.

However, in Ocampo vs Ocampo2, “ A party who did not

participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as
having contributed to the same jointly if said party’s efforts consisted
in the care and maintenance of the family household. Efforts in the
care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as
contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has
no salary or income or work or industry.”

Recommended actions:

1. Have a conference with the common-law husband and negotiate

on the terms of liquidation, partition and distribution of

2
GR No. 198908, 3 August 2015
 property, including the terms of custody and support of their
children;
2. Partition the property extrajudicially;
3. If the other party is not willing to settle the properties amicably,
it is recommended that an action for Liquidation, Partition and
Distribution, under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, be filed either
in MTC ( if the value of the properties do not exceed P 50,000.00)
or in the RTC ( if the value exceeds P 50,000.00).

Since the Rules on Co-Ownership are applicable in their

situation, the following Articles are applicable:

Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the

ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs
to different persons. In default of contracts, or of
special provisions, co-ownership shall be
governed by the provisions of this Title.

Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the

benefits as well as in the charges, shall be
proportional to their respective interests. Any
stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be
void. The portions belonging to the co-owners in
the co-ownership shall be presumed equal,
unless the contrary is proved.
Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain
in the coownership. Each co-owner may demand
at any time the partition of the thing owned in
common, insofar as his share is concerned. X x x

Art. 496. Partition may be made by agreement

between the parties
or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be
governed by the Rules
of Court insofar as they are consistent with this
Code.