How to Divide Property When a Live-In Relationship Ends: Why Co-Ownership Rules Apply Even Without a Marriage Certificate

Introduction: why property disputes arise even without marriage

Many couples in the Philippines live together as partners without a marriage certificate. When the relationship ends, disputes often follow: Who owns the house? Who keeps the car? Can one partner sell or donate property acquired during the relationship?

Philippine law addresses these questions through co-ownership rules under the Family Code. The applicable rules depend on whether the partners were legally capacitated to marry each other, whether the relationship was exclusive, and whether there was actual financial or industry contribution to property acquisition.

Governing laws: the Family Code’s property regimes for unions without marriage

The Family Code expressly provides property rules for “unions without marriage” under two main provisions: Article 147 and Article 148 of Executive Order No. 209 (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987).

These provisions recognize that while the couple may not have a valid marriage, property acquired during cohabitation may still be treated as co-owned, subject to specific conditions.

Why co-ownership applies even without a marriage certificate

When the Family Code applies Articles 147 or 148, it does not “create” a marriage. It instead imposes a property framework that allocates ownership based on presumed or proven contributions and the parties’ legal status.

In other words, the law separates the issue of marital validity from the issue of property fairness and accounting during cohabitation, which is why co-ownership rules can apply even when the relationship is not a valid marriage.

Which rule applies: Article 147 vs. Article 148

Article 147 (Family Code, 1987): for exclusive cohabitation where parties can marry each other

Article 147 applies when a man and a woman are capacitated to marry each other and live exclusively as husband and wife without a valid marriage, including certain void marriages. Under this rule:

• Wages and salaries earned during cohabitation are owned in equal shares.
• Properties acquired during cohabitation are presumed obtained by joint efforts and owned in equal shares, unless proven otherwise.
• Even if only one partner earned income, the other may be deemed to have contributed through care and maintenance of the family and household.
• No encumbrance or disposal of one’s share in the property acquired during cohabitation may be made without the other’s consent until after cohabitation ends.

These rules are set out in Article 147 of the Family Code of the Philippines (1987). (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987)

The Supreme Court has applied Article 147 to property acquired during a union later declared void, emphasizing that the regime is co-ownership rather than the rules on liquidation of absolute community or conjugal partnership. (Barrido v. Nonato, 2014)

Article 148 (Family Code, 1987): for relationships where the parties cannot marry each other

Article 148 covers cohabitation not falling under Article 147. This includes situations such as:

• One party is married to another person (adulterous or bigamous settings).
• Both parties are married to other persons.
• Other relationships where the parties are not legally capacitated to marry each other.

Under Article 148, only properties acquired through the parties’ actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are co-owned, and ownership is in proportion to their contributions (with an equal-share presumption if proof is lacking). (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987)

The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 148 governs property relations in adulterous or concubinage-like relationships, and that the party claiming a share must prove actual contribution. (Benasa v. Mahor, 2022)

At a glance: differences between Articles 147 and 148

Topic	Article 147 (Family Code, 1987)	Article 148 (Family Code, 1987)
Who is covered	Man and woman capacitated to marry, living exclusively as spouses without a valid marriage	All other cohabitations (including when a party is married to another)
How co-ownership arises	Presumption of joint efforts for properties acquired during cohabitation	Only property acquired through actual joint contribution
Default sharing	Equal shares (unless proof to the contrary)	Proportionate to contribution; equal if proof is lacking
Household work counts?	Yes, household/family care may count as contribution	Rule focuses on actual contributions of money/property/industry
If one party is married to someone else	Generally not the proper rule	The married party’s share in the co-ownership accrues to the absolute community or conjugal partnership in the valid marriage

Presumptions and proof: what you must show in court (or settlement)

Presumptions under the Rules on Evidence

For property disputes arising from cohabitation, evidentiary presumptions may help establish entitlement, depending on the relationship type:

• There is a disputable presumption that property acquired by a man and a woman capacitated to marry each other and living exclusively as spouses, without marriage, was obtained by their joint efforts. (Revised Rules on Evidence, 1989)
• There is also a disputable presumption of equal contributions and shares for property acquired through actual joint contribution when the parties are not capacitated to marry each other. (Revised Rules on Evidence, 1989)

What “cohabitation” means in property cases

“Cohabitation” does not always require uninterrupted physical presence under one roof. The Supreme Court recognized that cohabitation may still exist despite physical absences for work, if the relationship is sustained in a manner akin to husband and wife and there is intent to maintain it. (Benasa v. Mahor, 2022)

Typical documents and evidence used to prove ownership shares

Property division often turns on documentation. Depending on whether Article 147 or 148 applies, the following may matter:

• Titles, deeds of sale, contracts to sell, loan documents, and bank records
• Proof of payments: receipts, remittances, transfer slips, amortization schedules
• Evidence of income sources and timing of acquisition
• Admissions or acknowledgments by a partner regarding the other’s share or contribution

In a recent case involving a same-sex couple, the Supreme Court applied Article 148 and held that an acknowledgment by one party of the other’s contribution and share may bind the acknowledging party and support a finding of co-ownership and partition. (Josef v. Ursua, 2025)

What property gets divided, and what usually does not

Property commonly included

• Real property acquired during the relationship (house and lot, condominium unit)
• Vehicles, business assets, and major appliances bought during cohabitation
• Bank deposits or investment instruments shown to be funded during cohabitation

Property commonly excluded or disputed

• Property owned by one party before cohabitation (unless mixed with joint funds in a provable way)
• Property acquired purely by one party’s exclusive funds under Article 148, where the other cannot prove actual contribution
• Assets titled in one partner’s name but claimed by the other without documentary support, especially under Article 148

Limits on selling, donating, or encumbering property during cohabitation

Under Article 147, neither party can encumber or dispose of his or her share in property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common without the other’s consent, until after cohabitation ends. (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987)

The Supreme Court has addressed attempts to transfer property during cohabitation and discussed the effect of such disposition in light of the co-ownership framework. (Perez, Jr. v. Perez-Senerpida, 2021)

Procedures when the relationship ends: how division is usually done

Option 1: amicable settlement and partition

Many disputes can be resolved by written settlement, especially when both sides can agree on:

• Inventory of assets acquired during cohabitation
• Valuation method (zonal value, appraisal, mutually chosen valuation)
• Division by sale and split proceeds, or transfer of title to one party with compensation to the other

If a property is titled in only one party’s name, a settlement often includes a deed of transfer or recognition of share, supported by proof of contribution where needed.

Option 2: judicial action for accounting, partition, or reconveyance

When settlement fails, parties typically resort to court actions such as:

• Action for partition of co-owned property
• Accounting to determine contributions, income, and expenses affecting net share
• Reconveyance where one party alleges property was wrongfully titled or retained despite co-ownership

In Article 148 situations, courts are often strict about requiring proof of actual joint contribution, especially where the relationship is adulterous or otherwise outside Article 147. (Benasa v. Mahor, 2022)

Common scenarios and how the rules usually apply

Scenario 1: both single, lived exclusively, bought a home during cohabitation

This commonly falls under Article 147, which presumes joint acquisition and equal shares for property acquired during cohabitation, unless proof shows a different sharing arrangement. (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987)

Scenario 2: one partner is married to someone else, but they acquired property together

This generally falls under Article 148. Co-ownership exists only over property acquired through actual joint contribution, and the married party’s share may accrue to the property regime of the valid marriage. (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987; Benasa v. Mahor, 2022)

Scenario 3: one partner worked abroad or at sea and was frequently away

Physical absence does not automatically negate cohabitation for property purposes. Courts may still find cohabitation if the relationship is maintained with intent to return and continue the union. (Benasa v. Mahor, 2022)

Scenario 4: same-sex couple acquired property during their relationship

Current jurisprudence has applied Article 148 to property relations of same-sex cohabiting partners, requiring proof of actual joint contribution, though written acknowledgments of contribution and sharing can be significant evidence. (Josef v. Ursua, 2025)

Exceptions, risks, and recurring mistakes

• Assuming equal shares in all live-in relationships: Equal sharing is more naturally aligned with Article 147; under Article 148, contribution proof is central. (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987)
• Relying only on titles: Title is important but not always decisive when co-ownership is proven by law and evidence.
• No documentation of payments: Lack of receipts, transfer records, or written acknowledgments can significantly weaken an Article 148 claim. (Benasa v. Mahor, 2022)
• Unilateral transfers during cohabitation: Attempting to sell or donate co-owned property without consent can trigger disputes and litigation. (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987; Perez, Jr. v. Perez-Senerpida, 2021)

What to do early: documentation steps couples often overlook

Even when couples do not plan to marry, property disputes are reduced when parties document the transaction clearly. Common measures include:

• Keeping proof of contribution (bank transfer slips, remittance records, loan amortization receipts)
• Executing a written acknowledgment of contributions and intended sharing, especially where only one name appears on the title
• Keeping records of major improvements and who paid for them (renovations, extensions, furnishings)

Conclusion: final observations and recommendations

When a live-in relationship ends, Philippine law does not leave property division to guesswork. The Family Code provides a co-ownership framework through Articles 147 and 148, depending on exclusivity, capacity to marry, and proof of contribution. (Family Code of the Philippines, 1987)

Before escalating to litigation, parties should compile an inventory of assets, gather proof of contribution, and attempt a written settlement. If settlement is not possible, an action for accounting and partition may be necessary, with the outcome heavily influenced by documentation and the applicable Family Code provision. (Benasa v. Mahor, 2022; Barrido v. Nonato, 2014)

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.