When are you considered as common partners?

Question: I am still married with my ex husband and now living together with my new partner and we already have a baby, can we be considered as common partners?

In the Philippines, even if you are separated from your husband and living with a new partner, you cannot be legally considered as "common-law partners" because your previous marriage is still valid. Here’s why:

1. Legal Status Under Philippine Law

• Since the Philippines does not have divorce (except for Muslims), you are still legally married to your husband unless:

  • You get an annulment or

  • You file for legal separation (though this does not allow remarriage).

• Because of this, your new relationship is not legally recognized as a common-law partnership under Philippine law.

2. What About "Common-Law" in Practice?

• In practice, some people in the Philippines refer to their live-in partners as common-law spouses, especially if they have a child together.

• However, legally speaking, you are not considered a common-law spouse since you are still married to someone else.

3. Possible Legal Implications

• Bigamy Risk – If you attempt to remarry without an annulment, it could be considered bigamy, a criminal offense.

• Property Issues – Any assets you acquire while still married may still be considered conjugal property with your legal husband.

• Child’s Status – Your baby is considered illegitimate under Philippine law because you are still married to someone else. However, you can legitimize the child if you and your new partner get married after annulment.

What Can You Do?

If you want legal security for your new family, you may want to consider:

✅ Annulment – If your marriage qualifies for annulment, this is the only way you can legally be free.

✅ Legal Documents for Your Child – You can ensure your baby’s birth certificate lists the father’s name and arrange legal recognition.

source: Ziggurat Real Estate

What is the Doctrine of Laches?

In the realm of Philippine law, the doctrine of laches plays a pivotal role in ensuring fairness and equity. It is a legal principle that prevents a person from asserting a claim if they have delayed unreasonably in doing so, to the prejudice of another party. This doctrine is rooted in the idea that "equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights."

Defining the Doctrine of Laches

Laches is not merely about the passage of time; it concerns the inequity of enforcing a right after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. While statutes of limitation provide a fixed period within which legal action must be initiated, the doctrine of laches focuses on the fairness of allowing a claim to proceed despite the delay.

Elements of Laches

To invoke the doctrine of laches in the Philippine legal context, the following elements must typically be established:

1. Neglect or Delay: The party asserting the claim failed to act within a reasonable time to enforce their right.

2. Knowledge of the Right: The claimant was aware, or should have been aware, of their right to take action.

3. Prejudice to the Opposing Party: The delay caused harm, disadvantage, or prejudice to the other party.

4. Inequity of Allowing the Claim: Enforcing the claim after such a delay would be unjust or unfair.

Laches vs. Prescription

It is important to distinguish laches from prescription, as they are separate legal concepts:

• Prescription is a statutory concept that sets a fixed time limit for filing legal actions. Once the prescribed period lapses, the right to bring the action is extinguished, regardless of the circumstances.

• Laches, on the other hand, is an equitable principle that can be invoked even if the statutory period has not yet expired, provided the delay in asserting the claim is deemed unreasonable and prejudicial.

Application in Philippine Jurisprudence

The Philippine Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the doctrine of laches in various cases, particularly in disputes involving property, contracts, and inheritance. For instance:

• In property disputes, a party who fails to take timely action to reclaim land or assert ownership rights may lose their claim if the opposing party has occupied or improved the property in good faith over a significant period.

• In inheritance cases, heirs who delay challenging the distribution of an estate may be barred from asserting their claims if the delay causes undue hardship to other parties.

Example Case

Consider a scenario where a person’s ancestral land is occupied by a relative. Despite being aware of the situation, the owner takes no action for 30 years. During this time, the relative builds a home, plants crops, and resides on the land in good faith. If the owner suddenly files a case to reclaim the land, the court may dismiss the claim on the grounds of laches, as the delay has caused significant prejudice to the relative.

Importance of Vigilance

The doctrine of laches underscores the importance of vigilance in protecting one’s rights. It serves as a reminder that the law does not favor those who neglect their responsibilities or delay legal action to the detriment of others.

Conclusion

In the Philippine legal context, the doctrine of laches is a safeguard against stale claims and inequitable outcomes. It promotes fairness by balancing the rights of claimants with the interests of those who may be unjustly affected by unreasonable delays. To avoid the pitfalls of laches, individuals must be proactive in asserting their rights and taking timely legal action when necessary.

Source: ZRE

Open spaces in a subdivision are beyond the commerce of man

In the Philippines, open spaces in a subdivision—such as parks, playgrounds, and roads—are typically beyond the commerce of man, meaning they cannot be sold or privately owned once they are designated as common areas.

Legal Basis:

1. Presidential Decree No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree)

   • Requires developers to allocate at least 30% of the total subdivision area for open spaces, roads, and other community facilities.

   • These open spaces are meant for public or homeowners' association (HOA) use and cannot be sold or used for commercial purposes.

2. Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160)

   • Upon completion of the subdivision, the roads and open spaces must be turned over to the local government or the HOA for maintenance.

   • If turned over to the local government, these spaces become public domain and cannot be sold.

3. Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD 957

   • Open spaces are considered part of the subdivision’s amenities and should not be converted for private or commercial use unless properly reclassified by authorities.

     
     

Exceptions:

• In some cases, developers or HOAs may petition the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB, now DHSUD) or the local government unit (LGU) for reclassification. If approved, these open spaces might be used differently (e.g., converted into commercial property), but this is rare and subject to strict legal processes.

  
  

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate.