Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code are two crucial provisions that deal with the concept of void marriage and the legal consequences of living together without the benefit of marriage. In this article, we will dive into the specifics of these articles to help you better understand their implications and significance.
What is the applicable property regime in a union without marriage or in cases of void marriage?
The applicable property regime is not an absolute community or conjugal partnership of property. The property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation are governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, as the case may be, of the Family Code.
What are the requisites for the applicability of Article 147 of the Family Code?
The requisites are:
- Both man and woman are capacitated to marry each other;
- They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
- Their union is without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is void.[1]
Note: Void marriages under this provision do not contemplate a void marriage that may occur due to non-observance of Article 40 of the Family Cde, which shall be governed by ACP or CPG.
What is the presumption with regard to ownership of properties obtained by the parties during cohabitation?
In the absence of proof, 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. A party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have been contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance e of the family and of the household.
Can the party encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common?
Generally, neither party can encumber nor dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, except where made:
- With the consent of the other; or
- After the termination of their cohabitation.
What are the cases of cohabitation contemplated in Article 148 of the Family Code?
The relationships contemplated under Article 148 are those whereby a man and a woman live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage but are not capacitated to marry. These include:
- Void marriages by reason of public policy under Art. 38;
- incestuous void marriages under Art. 37;
- A Bigamous or polygamous marriage; and
- An adulterous relationship.
Note: Where the marriage is declared void due to psychological incapacity under Art. 36, Art. 147 applies. [2]
What does the requirement of proof of “actual joint contribution” and the presumption of “equality of contribution under Article 148 of the Family Code mean?
Article 148 of the Family Code readily shows that there must be proof of “actual joint contribution” by both the live-in partners before the property becomes co-owned by them in proportion to their contribution. The presumption of “equality of contribution” arises only in the absence of proof of the proportionate contributions subject to the condition that the “actual joint contribution” is proven first. Simply put, proof of “actual joint contribution” by both parties is required, otherwise there is no co-ownership and no presumption of equal sharing.[3]
What is the distinction between Articles 147 and 148 as to applicability?
In Article 147, the provision applies to parties who are capacitated to marry each other, but live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage.
In Article 148, it applies to parties who are incapacitated to marry due to some legal impediments (i.e., adulterous relationships and marriages which are bigamous, incestuous, orvoid by reason of public policy under Article 38.
What is the distinction between Articles 147 and 148 when it comes to salaries and wages?
In Article 147, the parties’ salaries and wages are owned by them in equal shares.
In Article 148, these are separate owned by the parties. If any of them is married, his/her salary is the property of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of the legitimate marriage.
What is the distinction between Articles 147 and 148 as to properties acquired while living together?
In article 147, properties are presumed to be obtained by their joint efforts, work, or industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares. Efforts in care and maintenance of family and household are considered contributions.
In Article 148, No presumption of joint acquisition. When there is evidence of joint acquisition but none as to the extent of actual contribution, there is a presumption of equal sharing.
What is the distinction between Articles 147 and 148 as to forfeiture?
In article 147, when only one parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited:
- In favor of their common children;
- In case of default or waiver by any or all common children or their descendants each vacant share shall belong to respective surviving descendants; or
- In their absence, to the innocent party.
In all cases, forfeiture takes place upon termination of marriage.
In Article 148:
- if one of parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the CP or CPG existing in such valid marriage;
- If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his/her share shall be forfeited in the same manner provided for in Article 147; or
- The above rules apply even if both parties are in bad faith.
When is cohabitation deemed terminated?
There being no provision of law governing the cessation of such informal civil partnership, the same may be considered terminated upon their separation or desistance to continue said relations.[4]
Source:
The Family Code of the Philippines
[1] Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr, G.R. No. 152716, October 23, 2002
[2] Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014.
[3] Villanueva v. CA, G.R. No. 143286, April 24, 2004.
[4] Paterno v. Paterno, G.R. No. 213687, January 8, 2020.
