When Are Cohabiting Partners Presumed Equal Owners?

Introduction

When two unmarried partners live exclusively together as husband and wife, disputes may arise over houses, land, bank accounts, businesses, and other assets acquired during the relationship. Philippine law may presume that qualifying property was acquired through their joint efforts and is owned in equal shares, but the presumption does not apply to every cohabitation arrangement.

The controlling question is whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other, lived exclusively together as husband and wife, and acquired the property during that period through their work or industry. The evidence required depends principally on whether the relationship falls under Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.

Governing Law on Property Acquired During Cohabitation

Article 147 of the Family Code applies when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other live exclusively together as husband and wife without a marriage, or under a marriage that is void. Their wages and salaries are owned in equal shares, while property acquired 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. A partner’s contribution may consist of money, property, labor, or industry. The law also treats care and maintenance of the family and household as a joint contribution, even if that partner did not directly participate in the purchase or construction of the property. (Family Code, Art. 147.)

The Supreme Court has held that Article 147 governs property relations when a marriage is declared void ab initio because of psychological incapacity, provided that the statutory conditions for Article 147 are present. In such cases, the parties’ property relations are governed by co-ownership rather than by the liquidation rules for absolute community or conjugal partnership. ([Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, et al. (1996)](#J1.4); [Gonzales v. Gonzales (2005)](#J3.7).)

When Does the 50-50 Presumption Apply?

The equal-share presumption generally requires the coexistence of these circumstances:

• The parties are a man and a woman who are legally capacitated to marry each other.
• They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife.
• The property was acquired during their cohabitation.
• The property was acquired through their work, industry, or joint efforts.

Once these conditions are established, the law presumes that the property was acquired through their joint efforts and that each partner owns an equal share, unless the opposing party proves otherwise. ([Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr (2003)](#J9.10); [Ocampo v. Ocampo (2015)](#J5.4).)

The presumption is not limited to direct financial payments. A partner who managed the household, cared for the children, or maintained the family may be considered to have contributed jointly to the acquisition of property. ([Gonzales v. Gonzales (2005)](#J3.7).)

Article 147 Compared with Article 148

Article 147 must be distinguished from Article 148. Article 148 applies to cohabitation not covered by Article 147, including situations where the parties are not legally capacitated to marry each other or where one party is validly married to another.

Under Article 148, proof that property was acquired during cohabitation is not enough. The claimant must also show actual joint contribution. Mere registration of property in both names, or the use of the phrase “married to” in a title, does not by itself establish co-ownership. ([Ventura, Jr. v. Abuda, et al. (2013)](#J2.9).)

The Supreme Court has likewise ruled that, where no actual contribution is proven under Article 148, co-ownership does not arise. If actual contribution is established but the exact proportions cannot be proved, the parties’ contributions and shares may be presumed equal. ([De Canada v. Baclot, et al. (2020)](#J8.8).)

What Counts as Joint Effort or Industry?

Joint effort is broader than payment of the purchase price. Depending on the circumstances, it may include employment income, business operations, farming, construction work, management of a family enterprise, payment of household expenses, and services that allowed the other partner to earn or preserve income.

Household and family care are expressly recognized under Article 147. For example, a partner who did not contribute cash toward a house may still assert an equal share if that partner’s care of the home and family constituted the contribution contemplated by law.

The presumption, however, may be defeated by competent proof showing that the property was acquired exclusively from one partner’s separate funds, inherited property, donation, or another source not attributable to the parties’ joint efforts.

Evidence That May Support Equal Ownership

A party asserting co-ownership should assemble evidence relating to the relationship, the acquisition, the source of funds, and the parties’ contributions. Relevant evidence may include:

• Property titles, deeds of sale, tax declarations, and receipts showing the date and manner of acquisition.
• Bank records, remittance records, loan documents, and payment receipts.
• Employment records, business documents, payroll records, and proof of income.
• Construction contracts, purchase orders, permits, and records of improvements.
• Messages, affidavits, photographs, and testimony showing exclusive cohabitation and household arrangements.
• Evidence of childcare, household management, or other family services.

The 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Evidence recognize presumptions concerning property acquired by parties capacitated to marry each other who live exclusively together as husband and wife. They also recognize a presumption of equal contributions in certain Article 148 situations, but only where actual joint contribution has first been established. (2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131.)

Effect of Property Registration in One Name

Registration in only one partner’s name does not automatically defeat an Article 147 claim. The decisive issue is the property regime established by law and the evidence concerning acquisition during the qualifying union.

Conversely, registration in both names does not automatically establish equal ownership under Article 148. Where Article 148 applies, the claimant must prove actual contribution before the presumption of equal shares can operate. ([Ventura, Jr. v. Abuda, et al. (2013)](#J2.9); [De Canada v. Baclot, et al. (2020)](#J8.8).)

Restrictions on Sale or Encumbrance

Under Article 147, neither partner may encumber or dispose of his or her share in property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, by an act between living persons, without the other partner’s consent until the cohabitation ends.

This rule is important when one partner attempts to sell, mortgage, donate, or otherwise transfer property acquired during the relationship. A claimant should promptly examine the title, the transaction documents, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged transfer.

Forfeiture in Certain Void-Marriage Cases

Article 147 provides a special forfeiture rule when the cohabitation arose from a void marriage and only one party acted in good faith. Upon termination of the cohabitation, the share of the party in bad faith may be forfeited in favor of the common children. If the common children or their descendants default or waive their rights, the law provides the succeeding beneficiaries, including the innocent party where there are no descendants.

The forfeiture rule is distinct from the ordinary determination of whether property is co-owned. The parties’ contributions and the applicable property regime must first be identified before the consequences of forfeiture can be assessed.

Partition and Liquidation

When Article 147 applies, the property relationship is one of co-ownership. Partition and distribution are therefore governed by the rules on co-ownership rather than by the liquidation procedures applicable to absolute community or conjugal partnership.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a decree declaring a marriage void under Article 36 is not dependent on the prior liquidation, partition, and distribution of property governed by Article 147. The liquidation requirement applicable to absolute community or conjugal partnership does not automatically apply to Article 147 co-ownership. ([Diño v. Diño (2011)](#J6.5); [Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, et al. (1996)](#J1.4).)

Illustrative Examples

Example 1: Article 147 applies. A and B are both single and legally capacitated to marry each other. They live exclusively together for ten years. During that period, A pays for a parcel of land while B manages the household and cares for their children. Unless A proves that the property was acquired exclusively from a source outside their joint efforts, B may invoke the presumption of equal ownership.

Example 2: Article 148 applies. C is validly married to another person but cohabits with D. C and D acquire a condominium during their relationship. D must prove actual contribution of money, property, or industry. If actual contribution is not established, D cannot rely solely on the fact of cohabitation to claim co-ownership.

Example 3: Contribution is acknowledged. If one partner signs a written acknowledgment admitting that the other contributed to the acquisition of property and is entitled to a 50% share, that acknowledgment may establish actual contribution and may prevent the signatory from later denying the admitted share. ([Josef v. Ursua (2025)](#J4.23).)

Practical Steps for a Property Claim

1. Determine whether the parties were legally capacitated to marry each other when they began and continued their exclusive cohabitation.
2. Identify the date of acquisition and determine whether the property was acquired during the cohabitation.
3. Collect documents showing the source of funds, payment history, construction, maintenance, and improvements.
4. Establish household, childcare, and family-management contributions where direct financial payment was made by only one partner.
5. Check whether a valid marriage to another person, bad faith, or another circumstance places the relationship under Article 148.
6. Review titles and subsequent transfers before signing a waiver, sale, mortgage, or settlement.

Conclusion

The presumption of equal shares is strongest when a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other live exclusively as husband and wife and acquire property during that union through their joint efforts. Under Article 147, household and family care may qualify as a contribution, and property acquired during the relationship is generally presumed to be owned equally.

The presumption is not universal. If Article 148 applies, actual joint contribution must first be proven, and mere cohabitation or registration in both names may be insufficient. Parties asserting rights over cohabitation property should preserve financial records, title documents, evidence of household contributions, and written admissions, while obtaining advice before transferring or partitioning disputed assets.

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.