THE GROUNDS OF CO-OWNERSHIP IN A COMMON LAW RELATIONSHIP

Hi,

I read the family code and would just like to clarify what was said in there and ask a few questions.

A) A common-law partner relationship can legally start on day one as soon as both couples live exclusively together. By exclusively, does this count not living together alongside one of the partners' parents' home?

B) To clarify this clause in the family code, "Art. 147. 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.."
- once a common-law partnership is started, by the clause "capacitated to marry each other" how does this legally affect

couples who are not yet ready to get married or are not certain they will eventually be, but are both living exclusively together? Are they bound by the equal co-ownership rule? How does one prove that they are capacitated to marry each other, will this be in a matter of a proposal?

C) To clarify correct me if i am wrong, once a common-law relationship is started and both are capacitated to marry each other, both will have equal co-ownership of all assets, property and money acquired thereafter. The equal co-ownership rule does not change or complicate even if one of the partners earn more in their job, or if the other partner just stays home and do housework, take care of the kid, etc...

D) Will all property, money and assets acquired before the common-law relationship be divided amongst the ones who owns it first, before counting everything else acquired after the common-law relationship started? What happens when the couple breaks up to the division of this property?

E) So there really isn't any difference amongst the division of property/money amongst those who are married and those who are still in a common-law relationship?

Thank you, and i hope you answer my questions and clear things up for me and my partner.

1) exclusively means living together in monogamous relationship.

2) capacitated to marry means their personal circumstances of being of age and there is no legal impediment to them getting married. it is not dependent on living together or a proposal to marry.

the effect of being co-owners begin once they start living together.

3) it is the salaries which are co-owned in equal shares. as for the properties, it depends on where the funds were acquired from to acquire the properties. if from the separate properties existing prior to living in, then the new property belongs exclusively to the one who used his separate property. if it came from the co-owned salaries, then it is equally owned.

4) all properties acquired prior to living in remains to be the exclusive property of the respective owner. i don't understand the breaking up question.

5) if you compare married couples and living in who both began their relationships with zero properties then there is not much difference. if they were rich, then the married ones become co-owners also of the separate properties.

note that this comparison is limited only to the matter of ownership and division of properties. there are myriad of different implications as to support, inheritance, etc.

Thank you for answering my questions:

What i meant for number 4.. about breaking up, meaning what if the couple ends the common-law relationship, decides to break-up with one another, and one decides to move out. What will happen to the division of property and money when both aren't married yet? Also will the one who acted in bad faith loose all money and property acquired during the union, to the one who remained in good faith for common-law partners? If so, what if no one acted in bad faith, and the break-up was mutual, how then will be the division of the money and property acquired during the relationship and before?

Just to clarify your answer for number 5... " if they were rich, then the married ones become co-owners also of the separate properties."--- by separate properties, do you mean the properties owned by the rich one before the marriage?

4) they will have to account for their properties, list them down and divide based on the principle. if one refuses, the other can file a case to compel separation of property.

5) yes, rich wife + poor Husband will lead to husband becoming co-owner of the rich wife's properties.

" they will have to account for their properties, list them down and divide based on the principle. if one refuses, the other can file a case to compel separation of property."--- ok, but how does it work when someone has acted in bad faith that caused the break in relationship for common-law partners. Because i have heard, for married couples, the one who acted in bad faith may get nothing, his or her share goes to the children, and to the one in good faith.

Thanks for your answers, here are my final questions, if i may...


A) When it states "under a void marriage" under the family code, does this count for divorced couples or unmarried couples who are still currently living together?

B) can you disown a child? If you disown a child, will that child get any inheritance from you, based on the rules of co-ownership? Also, as an adult but a child(not disowned) by your parents, is the money based on the rules of co-ownership(25% of all wealth shared by mother and father) from your parents entitled to you, owned by you in means you have complete control of that money and can take it anytime you want without consent.

a) no, void marriage means there is a fatal defect in their marriage. it does not refer to divorced or unmarried couples.

b) yes, a child can be disowned.

the child has no ownership of the parent's properties. only upon their death will the child become an owner through inheritance.

thanks for the response, but if i could restate the question again you overlooked.

" they will have to account for their properties, list them down and divide based on the principle. if one refuses, the other can file a case to compel separation of property."

--- ok, but how does it work when someone has acted in bad faith that caused the break in relationship for common-law partners. Because i have heard, for married couples, the one who acted in bad faith may get nothing, his or her share goes to the children, and to the one in good faith.

that rule applies to married couples only.

but you raise an interesting question. what would be the rule for unmarried couples? unless someone can correct me, I don't believe this matter has been resolved by the Supreme Court.

Here are some cases when art. 147 was discussed:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/159521.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137650.html

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/133743_134029.htm

i'd just like to know the difference between a void marriage and divorced. Since it still states that under a void marriage, the co-ownership rule still withstands... but what if the couple is no longer living together?

strictly speaking, a void marriage is one that is void from the beginning because of some fatal flaw.

it differs from a voidable marriage where the flaw is correctable.

divorce may be relative or absolute. relative divorce is more commonly known as legal separation where the spouses live apart but the marital bond subsists. absolute divorce dissolves the marital bond completely. only relative divorce is allowed in the philippines and there are specific bases which rely on fault on one of he parties.

hi, i'd just like to throw this extra question, it is a bit unrelated but regardless.... here it is:

Can the mother or another be appointed guardian as a single parent and the father can disown the child in a mutual agreement with the woman who he impregnated? The same question applies if it was the woman as well who is turning full responsibility to the father, and disowning the child.

temporary custody can be entrusted to someone else, and if that person is raising the child alone, then she can be entitled to be considered a single parent. guardianship requires a judicial petition.

a father can refuse to acknowledge an illegitimate child. a mother cannot because the child came from her. any false statements on the birth certificate is considered the crime of simulation of birth.

what would the definition be for illegitimate child?

a child born to parents who are not married

I just want to ask about marriage. If the two divorce but no one has acted in bad faith, they both just decide to call it quits in a mutual agreement, what happens to the division of properties? Will it be a complete half/half division of all properties/money/assets, even including the ones that were owned before marriage started? Like let's say rich man marries poor woman, in a divorce due to mutual agreement(not in bad faith), poor woman still gets half of all of rich man's wealth?

In an event of a divorce, since relative divorce is the only one legal in the country, the co-ownership rules still is in effect in that both still share equal possession of properties/money/assets, what happens when one marries another?

if no one acted in bad faith, they can petition for judicial separation of property. they can agree how to split the property or ask the court to do it if they cannot.

they cannot marry another even if relatively divorced which is another term for legal separation. the marital tie subsists, unlike in absolute divorce. there is complete division of property.

attyLLL wrote:

they cannot marry another even if relatively divorced which is another term for legal separation. the marital tie subsists, unlike in absolute divorce. there is complete division of property.

do you also mean that any further assets, property and income that person owns will still share it equally and co-owned with the partner whom he/she divorced?

no, not if there is a decree of legal separation and there is separation of property.

Atty ask lang po regarding don sa sinabi mo na:


3) it is the salaries which are co-owned in equal shares. as for the properties, it depends on where the funds were acquired from to acquire the properties. if from the separate properties existing prior to living in, then the new property belongs exclusively to the one who used his separate property. if it came from the co-owned salaries, then it is equally owned.

Sa situation ko kac, ako lang ang may work at wala cyang work. Maituring pa rin ba na co-owned ang properties ko since don nanggaling pambili ng properties ko? Salamat po.

@ ronald: i think your properties would be co-owned since you acquired those new properties with the salary you got after you live in with your partner. But if you used money or property before you established a common low partnership, then that new property that you bought with it will be yours solely. But correct me if i am wrong attorney, when both ronald and is partner get married, they will co-own absolutely all properties of each other whether it been bought through pre-existing properties prior to living in.

Attorney, i've got a question regarding divorce. What is the difference between relative and absolute when it comes to the division of co-ownership of assets and money/assets acquired afterwards? How is this different from what happens in annulment? Also in a more specific note, what marital ties and obligations subsists after divorce that you are talking about, other than the fact that they cannot marry another?

I've also heard recent news that they may pass a bill to legalize absolute divorce. What would change if this gets legalized?

yes, they will then co-own everything if they marry.

when we say relative and absolute divorce, i assume that both went through judicial proceedings. there is no difference as to the properties.

i am not optimistic the bill will be passed

thanks for the response. what about in an annulment?

As for marital ties subsisting after divorce, i hear that the both still have to support each other financially, or is still financially responsible for the well being of the other, like for ex. the one who acted in bad faith will still need to be supported by the spouse who now has all the wealth. is this true?

in annulment, it depends on the ground.

in legal separation, it all depends on the final decision decreed by the court.

Paano po if the wife is the one who commited mistakes such as adultery. Is she still entitled for the conjugal property which was acquired during the marriage? 50/50 pa rin po b ung hatian sa property?

i believe not.. if under court she is guilty than she won't take any of the share, it will go directly to the wife's husband.