Dear Attorney,
I am seeking advice regarding my current situation with my live-in partner. We have been living together for several years, but recently I discovered that my partner has been unfaithful. To make matters worse, they are no longer providing financial support, which has greatly affected my ability to manage our household and care for our child. Since we are not married, I am unsure about the legal actions I can take against them. Could you please advise me on the remedies available under Philippine law in situations like mine?
Sincerely,
A Concerned Individual
Legal Recourse for Live-In Partners: Infidelity and Lack of Support Under Philippine Law
In the Philippines, the legal system recognizes the increasing prevalence of relationships outside the bonds of formal marriage. However, the law still places significant importance on the rights and duties that arise within marriages, leaving live-in relationships with limited legal remedies in certain aspects. Nonetheless, individuals in live-in arrangements are not without recourse when they encounter issues such as infidelity or a partner's failure to provide support.
This article seeks to explore the potential legal actions that an individual, who is in a live-in partnership, may take when their partner is unfaithful or fails to provide financial support.
I. Legal Context of Live-In Relationships
Live-in relationships, sometimes referred to as "common-law" partnerships, are not formally recognized as marriages under Philippine law. This lack of formal recognition creates limitations for live-in partners in terms of rights and obligations that are automatically conferred on spouses in a valid marriage.
Article 147 and Article 148 of the Family Code of the Philippines provide the legal framework for property relations and duties within live-in partnerships. However, they do not grant live-in partners the same range of remedies available to married individuals, particularly in cases of infidelity or the failure to provide support.
A. Article 147: Applicability to Partnerships Where There is No Legal Impediment to Marry
Article 147 applies to live-in couples who are not legally married but who have no legal impediment to marry each other. In these situations, the provisions on co-ownership of properties acquired during the relationship apply. However, Article 147 is silent on matters of infidelity or support.
B. Article 148: Applicability to Partnerships with Legal Impediments to Marry
Article 148 applies to situations where one or both partners have a legal impediment to marry, such as being previously married to another person. This provision has a more limited application compared to Article 147, particularly regarding property relations, and it also does not directly address the issues of infidelity or support.
II. Remedies for Infidelity
While Philippine law explicitly recognizes the crime of adultery and concubinage in the context of marriage, these criminal offenses do not apply to live-in partners. Adultery is defined under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, while concubinage is covered under Article 334. Both offenses require a formal marriage to exist between the complaining spouse and the accused party.
In the case of live-in partners, infidelity—while morally condemnable—does not carry the same legal consequences as adultery or concubinage. The absence of a formal marital bond means that the cheating partner cannot be prosecuted for these offenses, as the legal basis for such crimes is tied to the sanctity of marriage.
A. Civil Liability
However, while there is no criminal liability for infidelity in a live-in partnership, it may still be possible to file a civil case for damages under Article 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. These articles are part of what is commonly referred to as the "abuse of rights" principle, which provides that a person must act with justice, give everyone their due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Article 21, in particular, may be invoked in cases where an individual suffers moral damages due to the wrongful act of another, even in the absence of a crime. If a live-in partner engages in infidelity, and the aggrieved partner suffers emotional distress or humiliation, a civil case for moral damages may be filed.
Article 21 states:
"Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."
To succeed in such a case, the aggrieved party must demonstrate the emotional or psychological harm caused by the infidelity, as well as the wrongful conduct of the unfaithful partner. The award of damages in such cases, while possible, depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the court's discretion.
B. Psychological Violence Under R.A. 9262 (VOWC Act)
An alternative legal remedy may be found under Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (VOWC Act). This law recognizes various forms of violence, including psychological violence, which may include acts of infidelity that cause emotional and mental suffering to the aggrieved woman.
Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262 defines psychological violence as:
"Acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity."
Although the term "marital infidelity" is used, the law's protection is extended to women in live-in partnerships, provided that the infidelity causes psychological harm. A complaint may be filed for psychological violence under R.A. 9262, and if the court finds that the infidelity caused emotional or psychological harm, protective measures, as well as criminal penalties, may be imposed on the offending partner.
III. Failure to Provide Support
Under Philippine law, the duty to provide support is primarily found within the context of a marital relationship. However, support obligations can also extend to live-in partners under certain conditions.
A. Support of Children
If the live-in couple has children, the non-supporting partner may be held liable for economic abuse under R.A. 9262, as failing to provide for the needs of the child is considered a form of abuse. Section 5(e) of R.A. 9262 provides that economic abuse includes acts that make a woman or her child financially dependent, such as:
"Withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business, or activity, except in cases wherein such acts are justified by prevailing circumstances."
Thus, if a live-in partner withholds financial support for their child, the aggrieved partner may file a complaint under R.A. 9262 for economic abuse. The law imposes both civil and criminal liabilities on the non-supporting partner, and the aggrieved party may also seek protective orders and financial assistance from the court.
B. Support of the Partner
As mentioned earlier, the duty to provide support primarily arises within a marital relationship. In the context of a live-in relationship, there is no explicit legal obligation for one partner to support the other, particularly if they are not married.
However, support may still be claimed under certain circumstances if the couple has children. In such cases, the partner may argue that the non-supporting partner has a moral obligation to contribute to the household expenses, particularly if their financial situation is significantly better.
Additionally, Article 147 of the Family Code provides that both parties to a live-in partnership must contribute to the support of the family according to their capacity. This provision implies that there is an expectation of mutual support within the partnership, and failure to meet this obligation may be used as a basis for a civil claim.
IV. Property Relations and the Division of Assets
When live-in partners separate, the issue of property division often arises, especially if both parties contributed to the acquisition of assets during their relationship.
A. Article 147 and Co-Ownership
Article 147 of the Family Code governs the property relations of live-in couples who are not legally married but have no legal impediment to marry. Under this provision, properties acquired during the partnership are generally considered co-owned by the couple. Each partner is entitled to an equal share of the property, provided that both contributed to the acquisition, either financially or through efforts (e.g., household work).
If the live-in partnership ends, the co-owned properties must be divided between the partners. However, this co-ownership rule only applies to couples with no legal impediment to marry.
B. Article 148 and Limited Property Rights
For live-in couples where one or both partners are legally impeded from marrying (e.g., due to a prior existing marriage), Article 148 of the Family Code provides a more limited approach. In this case, only the properties that are proven to have been acquired through the joint efforts of the partners will be co-owned. If no such evidence exists, the properties will belong exclusively to the partner who paid for them.
Conclusion
While live-in partnerships are not accorded the same legal protections as marriages under Philippine law, there are still remedies available for individuals who experience infidelity or lack of support from their live-in partners. Civil cases for damages and claims under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act may offer some recourse, particularly in cases of emotional or psychological harm. Similarly, the obligation to provide support for children remains enforceable, and economic abuse under R.A. 9262 provides a legal avenue for addressing non-support issues.
Nevertheless, individuals in live-in partnerships should be aware of the limitations in terms of their legal rights, especially when compared to those in formal marriages. Seeking legal advice from a qualified attorney is crucial to determine the best course of action based on the specific
circumstances of each case.