How Are Properties Divided in Void Marriages?

Introduction

When a marriage is declared void from the beginning, the parties are generally not governed by the property regime applicable to a valid marriage. Instead, the ownership of property acquired during their cohabitation may be determined under the co-ownership rules in Article 147 of the Family Code, provided that the statutory requirements are present.

This distinction is important. A declaration of nullity does not automatically mean that all property acquired during the relationship belongs exclusively to the person named in the title or who paid the purchase price. In appropriate cases, the law presumes that both parties contributed to the acquisition of property, including through household care and family maintenance.

Governing Law on Property Relations

Article 147 of the Family Code applies when a man and a woman who are both capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without a valid marriage or under a void marriage.

Under this provision, their wages and salaries are owned in equal shares. Property acquired by both parties through their work or industry is governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, property acquired while they lived together is presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts and is owned in equal shares. (Family Code of the Philippines, Article 147.)

The rule also recognizes that contribution is not limited to direct payment or employment income. A party who did not directly participate in acquiring property is deemed to have contributed jointly when that party’s efforts consisted of caring for and maintaining the family and household.

When Does Article 147 Apply?

Three requirements must generally concur:

• The parties must be a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other.
• They must have lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife.
• The relationship must have existed without the benefit of a valid marriage or under a void marriage.

The first requirement excludes a relationship in which either party was legally disqualified from marrying the other because of an existing marriage or another legal impediment. If the parties do not fall under Article 147, Article 148 of the Family Code may instead apply.

The Supreme Court explained the requirements for Article 147 in Diño v. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, 2011. The Court recognized that Article 147 governs the property relations of parties to a void marriage when they were legally capacitated to marry each other and lived exclusively together as husband and wife.

Equal Co-Ownership Is the General Presumption

Under Article 147, property acquired during the period of cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained through the joint efforts, work, or industry of both parties. The resulting ownership is generally equal, unless the presumption is overcome by competent proof.

For example, if one party purchased a house during the cohabitation using employment income, the other party may still claim a share if the statutory conditions are present. Household management, childcare, and family maintenance may constitute the contribution contemplated by the law.

In Ocampo v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 198908, 2015, the Supreme Court recognized that, in a marriage declared void because of psychological incapacity, Article 147 may govern the parties’ property relations. The Court stated that property acquired during the union is presumed to have been obtained through joint efforts, with the burden resting on the party who asserts otherwise.

The same approach was recognized in Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr, G.R. No. 152716, 2003, and Salas, Jr. v. Aguila, G.R. No. 202370, 2013, which applied the equal co-ownership presumption to property acquired during qualifying cohabitation.

Household Services May Constitute Contribution

Article 147 expressly treats household care and family maintenance as a form of contribution. A party therefore does not lose the right to claim an interest merely because that party did not earn income, sign the deed, make the down payment, or appear as the registered owner.

The relevant inquiry is whether the parties lived in the relationship contemplated by Article 147 and whether the property was acquired during that period. Evidence may include proof of common residence, family arrangements, payment of household expenses, childcare, management of the home, and the parties’ representations concerning their relationship.

Article 147 Compared with Article 148

Article 147 is not automatically applicable to every unmarried couple or every void marriage. Article 148 governs cohabitation that does not fall within Article 147.

Article 148 also contains special rules when one party is validly married to another person. In that situation, the share of the party in the co-ownership accrues to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in the valid marriage. The statutory forfeiture rules may also apply in cases of bad faith. (Family Code of the Philippines, Article 148.)

Effect of a Declaration of Psychological Incapacity

A marriage declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code is treated as void from the beginning. For property purposes, however, the applicable rule is not automatically the property regime that would have governed a valid marriage.

In Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127358, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that, in a void marriage, the parties’ property relations during cohabitation are governed by Article 147 or Article 148, as applicable, rather than automatically by the rules on conjugal partnership of gains.

Similarly, Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, 2014, recognized that property acquired during a void marriage caused by psychological incapacity may be governed by Article 147 when the parties were capacitated to marry each other and lived exclusively as husband and wife.

The legal treatment of psychological incapacity itself was clarified in Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, 2021. The Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity is a legal concept referring to a durable aspect of a person’s personality structure that renders the person truly incapable of complying with essential marital obligations. It need not be established through a medical diagnosis or expert testimony alone.

Property Partition Is Not a Prerequisite to Nullity

The declaration of absolute nullity of the marriage need not always await the prior liquidation and partition of the parties’ property.

In Diño v. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, 2011, the Supreme Court distinguished property regimes involving absolute community or conjugal partnership from co-ownership under Article 147. The rules requiring liquidation before the issuance of a decree do not automatically apply to Article 147 co-ownership.

The Court has likewise recognized that, in a void marriage, the partition of co-owned property is not a prerequisite to declaring the marriage void. This rule was reiterated in Soto v. Reyes-Soto and People, G.R. No. 249759, 2026.

Accordingly, the issues of marital status and property partition may be resolved in the appropriate sequence without treating liquidation under the rules of a valid marriage as an absolute condition for the decree of nullity.

Restrictions on Disposition During Cohabitation

Article 147 provides that neither party may encumber or dispose by an act inter vivos of that party’s share in property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other party, until after the termination of the cohabitation.

This restriction protects the other party’s undivided interest while the relationship continues. A party should therefore exercise caution before selling, donating, mortgaging, or otherwise transferring property acquired during qualifying cohabitation.

Ownership records should also be examined carefully. Registration in one party’s name does not necessarily defeat a claim of co-ownership if the statutory presumption applies and the evidence establishes the required cohabitation.

Forfeiture When One Party Acts in Bad Faith

Article 147 contains a special forfeiture rule when only one party to the void marriage acted in good faith. The share of the party in bad faith is forfeited in favor of the common children.

If the common children or their descendants default or waive their rights, the vacant share passes to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, the forfeited share belongs to the innocent party. The forfeiture takes place upon termination of the cohabitation.

The rule must be applied together with the statutory requirements concerning good faith, common children, descendants, and termination of cohabitation. It should not be treated as an automatic consequence of every declaration of nullity.

Evidence Relevant to a Property Claim

A party asserting co-ownership should preserve evidence showing both the relationship and the acquisition of the property. Relevant evidence may include:

• civil registry documents, marriage records, and the judgment declaring the marriage void;
• proof of common residence and exclusive cohabitation;
• land titles, deeds of sale, tax declarations, loan documents, and receipts;
• bank records, employment records, remittance records, and proof of household expenses; and
• testimony concerning household services, childcare, family maintenance, and the parties’ financial arrangements.

The evidence should be organized according to the date of acquisition. Property acquired before the parties began qualifying cohabitation, or after the relationship ended, may be treated differently from property acquired during the covered period.

Typical Applications

Property acquired during exclusive cohabitation. If both parties were legally capacitated to marry each other, lived exclusively as husband and wife, and acquired a house during their cohabitation, the house is generally presumed co-owned in equal shares unless the contrary is proven.

One party paid while the other managed the home. The non-paying party may still claim an equal share when the household and family-maintenance requirements of Article 147 are established.

One party was already validly married to another. Article 147 may not apply because the parties were not both capacitated to marry each other. Article 148 and its special rules may become relevant instead.

Property acquired after separation. Property acquired after the termination of cohabitation ordinarily should not be included in the Article 147 co-ownership. The precise date of separation and the date of acquisition may therefore be determinative.

Practical Legal Considerations

Parties should identify the applicable property provision before preparing a partition claim. The initial question is not merely who paid for the property or whose name appears on the title, but whether the parties satisfy Article 147 or Article 148.

A property inventory should include the date of acquisition, source of funds, registered owner, present possession, outstanding loans, improvements, and possible claims of creditors or heirs. This information helps determine whether the property is covered and how the parties’ interests should be established.

Parties should also avoid unilateral transfers while cohabitation continues. A sale or mortgage made without the required consent may generate additional disputes concerning the validity and effect of the transaction.

Conclusion

Property relations in a void marriage are generally governed by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code, depending on the parties’ legal capacity and the nature of their cohabitation. When Article 147 applies, property acquired during exclusive cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained through the parties’ joint efforts and is generally owned in equal shares.

The presumption includes contributions through household care and family maintenance. It may nevertheless be overcome by competent evidence showing a different ownership arrangement, a different period of acquisition, lack of qualifying cohabitation, or the applicability of Article 148.

For a sound property claim, parties should obtain the judgment of nullity, establish the period and character of cohabitation, prepare a complete property inventory, preserve documentary and testimonial evidence, and account for the statutory rules on disposition, bad faith, forfeiture, and partition.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.