Unmarried Cohabitation Establishing Property Rights In Long Term Illicit Relationships

The Supreme Court recently clarified when a couple living in an illicit relationship may acquire property rights over assets acquired during their cohabitation. In Benasa v. Mahor (G.R. No. 236659, August 31, 2022), the Court ruled that a seafarer who maintained a 25-year adulterous relationship with a married woman could claim co-ownership over properties purchased using his remittances. The decision provides important guidance on how Philippine law treats property relations in long-term illicit relationships, particularly for overseas Filipino workers.

The Facts of the Case

Bernard Benasa and Presentacion Mahor were childhood sweethearts. In 1974, they rekindled their relationship even though Mahor was already married to another man. Benasa worked as a seafarer and regularly remitted his salaries to Mahor through monthly allotments. Over 25 years, he sent her approximately US$585,755.89 and P200,927.00.

Using these funds, Mahor purchased several properties in Quezon City, Tagaytay City, and Baliuag, Bulacan—all registered solely in her name. When the couple separated in 1999, Benasa demanded an accounting and reconveyance of the properties. Mahor refused, prompting Benasa to file a petition for accounting, inventory, and reconveyance.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Article 148 of the Family Code applied to Benasa and Mahor's relationship, entitling Benasa to a share of the properties as a co-owner. Article 148 governs the property regime of couples in adulterous relationships or relationships in a state of concubinage.

The Ruling: Cohabitation Does Not Require Constant Physical Presence

The Court ruled in favor of Benasa, reversing the lower courts' decisions. The key holding was that cohabitation—the legal requirement for Article 148 to apply—does not demand that the couple live under one roof continuously.

The Court defined "cohabit" as dwelling or living together as husband and wife, even if not legally married. It emphasized that the law does not fix a specific period for cohabitation. Instead, courts must consider the circumstances of each case, particularly the parties' intent to maintain a shared dwelling.

For Benasa, his work as a seafarer required him to be overseas for extended periods. However, the Court found his intent to return to their shared residence was unmistakable. He maintained continuous communication through letters, sent substantial remittances, and lived in the Quezon City property whenever he returned to the Philippines.

Contributions Create Co-Ownership

Under Article 148, properties acquired through the parties' actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in common in proportion to their respective contributions. The Court found that Benasa's remittances constituted his contribution toward acquiring the contested properties.

Significantly, the Court held that registering the properties solely in Mahor's name was not conclusive proof of exclusive ownership. A certificate of title does not foreclose the possibility that a property may be co-owned by persons not named therein. What matters is whether the claimant can prove contributions to the acquisition.

The Court also noted that Mahor's own letters and notations—including a photograph inscription stating the house was "bought from my allotment"—supported Benasa's claims.

Practical Takeaways

• Cohabitation is a question of fact. Courts look at the totality of circumstances—including intent, communication, and shared living arrangements—not just physical presence under one roof.
• Article 148 of the Family Code applies to adulterous relationships. Couples in illicit relationships may acquire co-ownership rights over properties acquired through their joint contributions.
• Keep evidence of contributions. Bank slips, passbook entries, letters, and photographs documenting remittances and shared living arrangements can establish co-ownership claims.
• Registration is not conclusive. A property registered in one partner's name may still be co-owned if the other can prove actual contributions to its acquisition.
• Remittances to a partner do not automatically create a trust. The Court distinguished between contributions to co-owned property and funds held in trust, requiring clear evidence of the latter.

The case was remanded to the trial court for the proper determination of the parties' respective shares in the properties based on their actual contributions.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.