Prenuptial Agreement: Who Really Owns the Property After Marriage?
Absolute Community, Conjugal Partnership, Separation of Property, and the Rights of Unmarried Partners Explained
Understanding Property Ownership Under the Family Code of the Philippines
A Prenuptial Agreement is not only for wealthy couples.
Its practical purpose is to allow future spouses to decide, before marriage, what property regime will govern their financial and property relations during married life.
It can be particularly important when either future spouse already owns real property, operates a business, maintains substantial investments, has children from a previous relationship, or simply wants greater clarity as to the ownership and administration of property after marriage.
In many property disputes, the first question should therefore not be: “Whose name appears on the title?” The more important question may be:
What property regime governs the parties?
What Property Regime Can Future Spouses Choose?
Under Article 75 of the Family Code, future spouses may agree in their marriage settlements upon:
- Absolute Community of Property;
- Conjugal Partnership of Gains;
- Complete Separation of Property; or
- another property regime that is legally permissible.
In the absence of a valid marriage settlement, the property regime established by law will govern. For marriages governed by the Family Code, the general default regime is Absolute Community of Property.
A Prenuptial Agreement therefore gives future spouses an opportunity to determine their property regime before the marriage begins instead of leaving the matter entirely to the default rules of law.
When Must a Prenuptial Agreement Be Made?
Before the Wedding.
A couple generally cannot celebrate their marriage first and then simply execute a document afterwards calling it a “Prenuptial Agreement” in order to freely replace the property regime already governing their marriage.
Under Articles 76 and 77 of the Family Code, marriage settlements and their modifications must generally be:
- in writing;
- signed by the parties; and
- executed before the celebration of the marriage.
The law recognizes limited situations in which property relations may later be changed through the procedures authorized by the Family Code, including judicial separation of property. But spouses cannot simply disregard the statutory requirements and privately replace their existing property regime after marriage.
Moreover, for the marriage settlement to prejudice or bind third persons, it must be registered in the Local Civil Registry where the marriage contract is recorded and in the proper registries of property.
Practical Rule
If you are considering a Prenuptial Agreement, address it before the wedding — not after a disagreement over property has already begun.
No Prenup? Absolute Community Does Not Necessarily Mean “Everything”
This is one of the most common misconceptions about property relations between spouses.
Under Article 91 of the Family Code, the general rule under Absolute Community of Property is broad. Unless otherwise provided by law or by the marriage settlements, the community includes property owned by the spouses when the marriage is celebrated and property acquired thereafter.
Under Article 93, property acquired during the marriage is also presumed to belong to the community unless it is proven to be excluded.
But there are important exceptions.
Article 92: Property Excluded from the Absolute Community
Among the properties excluded from the community are:
- Property received by one spouse during the marriage through inheritance, donation, or another gratuitous title, including its fruits and income, unless the donor, testator, or grantor expressly provides that it shall form part of the community;
- Property intended for the personal and exclusive use of either spouse; and
- Property owned before the marriage by a spouse who has legitimate descendants from a former marriage, including the fruits and income of that property.
But There Is a Surprising Exception to the Exception: Jewelry
Although property intended for the personal and exclusive use of one spouse may be excluded from the Absolute Community, Article 92 expressly provides that jewelry forms part of the community property.
This illustrates why the statement:
“We are under Absolute Community, therefore everything belongs to both of us.”
is not always legally correct.
The source of the property, when it was acquired, how it was acquired, and the family circumstances surrounding the spouses may all be legally significant.
What Is Different About Conjugal Partnership of Gains?
Conjugal Partnership of Gains works differently from Absolute Community.
Under Article 109 of the Family Code, property that a spouse brings into the marriage as his or her own generally remains that spouse's exclusive property.
But under Article 106, the spouses place into a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits, and income from their separate properties, as well as properties acquired through their efforts or by chance during the marriage.
Upon dissolution of the partnership, the net gains are generally divided equally between the spouses unless a different arrangement has been validly agreed upon in the marriage settlements.
Example
Suppose one spouse already owned an apartment building before the marriage.
Under Conjugal Partnership of Gains, the property itself may remain that spouse's exclusive property.
However, the net fruits or income generated from the property during the marriage may form part of the conjugal partnership.
That is fundamentally different from the starting rule under Absolute Community of Property.
What If the Couple Chooses Complete Separation of Property?
Under a valid regime of Complete Separation of Property, each spouse generally owns, possesses, administers, enjoys, and disposes of his or her separate estate without needing the consent of the other spouse.
Each spouse's earnings from his or her profession, business, or industry, as well as the fruits of his or her separate property, generally remain that spouse's own property.
Separation of Property Does Not Mean Separation from Family Responsibilities
Even under Complete Separation of Property, both spouses remain responsible for family expenses.
Under Article 146, they bear family expenses in proportion to their income or, where appropriate, according to the current market value of their separate properties.
Separation of property may also be total or partial.
Under Article 144, if only certain properties are agreed to be separate, property that is not covered by the agreed separation generally belongs to the Absolute Community.
Can Future Spouses Put Anything They Want in a Prenup?
Not necessarily.
A Prenuptial Agreement gives future spouses considerable flexibility in arranging their property relations, but that freedom is still subject to mandatory provisions of law, public policy, rights of creditors, rights of third persons, and statutory family obligations.
For example, an agreement between future spouses cannot simply be used to defeat existing creditor rights or eliminate obligations that the law itself imposes.
A Prenup Is a Property-Planning Tool — Not a License to Disregard the Law.
The agreement should be carefully drafted around the circumstances of the future spouses and the property they actually intend to protect or regulate.
What If You Are Not Married?
Another common misconception is:
“We are not married, so my partner can never have any right over the property.”
That is not always correct.
The Family Code contains specific rules governing certain property relations between persons who live together without a valid marriage.
Article 147: Partners Who Are Legally Capable of Marrying Each Other
Article 147 applies when a man and a woman who are legally capacitated to marry each other live exclusively together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, or under circumstances covered by a void marriage.
One of its most important rules is that contribution is not limited to direct payment of money.
Properties acquired during the cohabitation are presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have been obtained through their joint efforts, work, or industry and to be owned in equal shares.
Significantly, a partner who did not directly participate in purchasing property may still be deemed to have contributed if that partner's efforts consisted of care and maintenance of the family and household.
In other words:
Contribution Is Not Always Measured by Receipts, Checks, or Bank Transfers.
Under Article 147, maintaining the household and caring for the family may itself constitute legally recognized contribution.
What If One Partner Is Still Married to Someone Else?
The rules can be substantially different.
Relationships that do not fall within Article 147 may instead be governed by Article 148 of the Family Code.
Article 148 Requires Actual Joint Contribution
Under Article 148, only property acquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry is generally owned by them in common.
The property is owned in proportion to their respective contributions.
In the absence of proof showing otherwise, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed equal.
The important distinction is that Article 148 does not contain Article 147's special rule automatically treating care and maintenance of the household as joint contribution.
Thus, in an Article 148 situation, the required actual contribution must be established by evidence.
Mere cohabitation, by itself, does not automatically make every property acquired during the relationship jointly owned.
There Is Another Important Rule
If one of the partners is validly married to another person, Article 148 provides that his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership existing in that valid marriage.
This is one reason property disputes involving live-in relationships can become considerably more complicated when one of the partners has an existing valid marriage.
Article 147 and Article 148 Are Not the Same
Article 147
Generally applies when the parties are legally capable of marrying each other and live exclusively together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
Property acquired during cohabitation enjoys a statutory presumption of joint acquisition.
Household and family care may expressly be treated as contribution.
Article 148
Applies to cohabitation not falling under Article 147.
Co-ownership generally covers only property acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry.
The existence and extent of that contribution can therefore become a central evidentiary issue.
A Recent Supreme Court Development: Josef v. Ursua
Case: Jennifer C. Josef v. Evalyn G. Ursua
G.R. No.: 267469
Decision Date: February 5, 2025
Publicly Highlighted by the Supreme Court: February 2026
In Josef v. Ursua, the Supreme Court recognized that persons in a same-sex relationship may be co-owners of property under Article 148, provided the actual contribution required by law is established.
The parties had lived together as a couple and acquired a house and lot. The property was registered in one partner's name.
However, documentary evidence — including a signed acknowledgment — showed that the other partner had paid approximately one-half of the purchase and renovation expenses.
The Supreme Court held that this evidence sufficiently established actual contribution and recognized her co-ownership interest.
Important Practical Lesson from Josef v. Ursua
Whose name appears on the title is extremely important — but it may not always end the inquiry into co-ownership when another person can prove the actual contribution required by law.
The ruling is especially important because it confirms that Article 148 may apply to property relations arising from a same-sex cohabiting relationship.
The case also demonstrates the importance of preserving evidence such as:
- bank transfers;
- checks;
- receipts;
- written acknowledgments;
- loan or financing documents;
- construction and renovation expenses; and
- other records showing actual contribution.
Another 2026 Ruling: What Happens to Property When the Marriage Is Declared Void?
Case: Juanito B. Soto v. Cassandra Reyes-Soto and the Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No.: 249759
Date: April 22, 2026
In Soto v. Reyes-Soto, the Supreme Court reiterated that the property relations of parties to a void marriage may be governed by Article 147 or Article 148, depending on the circumstances.
In that case, the Court found Article 147 applicable.
The Court further clarified that the partition of the parties' co-owned properties is not a prerequisite to obtaining a declaration of nullity of marriage.
Property partition is not a precondition to the declaration of nullity.
Once the parties' property is governed by co-ownership, partition may be undertaken by agreement or through appropriate judicial proceedings.
This clarification is particularly relevant to persons considering a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage who are concerned that every property issue must first be completely resolved before the marriage case can proceed.
Before Saying “This Property Is Mine,” Ask These Questions First
- When was the marriage celebrated?
- Was there a valid Prenuptial Agreement or marriage settlement?
- What property regime governs the spouses?
- When was the property acquired?
- Was it purchased before or during the marriage?
- Was it inherited or donated?
- What funds were used to acquire it?
- Did either party have a previous or existing marriage?
- If the parties were unmarried, were they legally capable of marrying each other?
- What actual financial, property, or industry contributions can be proven?
- Does the law recognize household and family care as contribution under the applicable regime?
Four Statements That May Be Legally Misleading
“We bought it while married, so it automatically belongs equally to both of us.”
“The title is only in my name, so my spouse or partner has no rights.”
“We are not married, so everything I bought belongs only to me.”
“We already got married, but we can just sign a prenup now.”
Each of these statements can be wrong depending on the applicable property regime and the evidence surrounding the acquisition of the property.
The Practical Lesson
Property ownership between spouses and partners cannot always be determined simply by looking at whose name appears on a deed, title, receipt, or bank account.
The applicable property regime must first be determined.
That determination may depend on the existence of a Prenuptial Agreement, the date and manner by which property was acquired, the source of the purchase money, inheritance or donations, existing marriages, and the actual contributions made by the parties.
Many property disputes become expensive precisely because these questions were never discussed, documented, or properly addressed when the marriage began or when the property was first acquired.
Final Takeaway
Before asking:
“Whose property is this?”
determine the applicable property regime first.
In property law, the correct answer often depends not only on the name appearing on the document, but also on when, how, and under what legal relationship the property was acquired.
Planning to Execute a Prenuptial Agreement?
A properly prepared marriage settlement can help future spouses clearly identify their chosen property regime before the wedding and reduce uncertainty concerning businesses, investments, real properties, income, and future acquisitions.
Property disputes involving married couples, former spouses, and live-in partners should likewise be reviewed based on the particular property regime and the evidence of acquisition and contribution.
Morgadez Law Offices
Landline: (085) 300-1851
Mobile Hotline: +63 956 841 2917
Email: morgadezlaw@gmail.com
Family Code of the Philippines
Executive Order No. 209, as amended
Articles 74–77, 91–93, 105–117, 143–148
Jennifer C. Josef v. Evalyn G. Ursua
G.R. No. 267469
February 5, 2025
Juanito B. Soto v. Cassandra Reyes-Soto and Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. 249759
April 22, 2026