Fewer Filipinos are saying ‘I do’

They say it’s easy to get married, but hard to stay married.

And in the Philippines, it seems harder just to say “I do” at the altar.

Latest data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) show that marriages declined for the second consecutive year in 2024, down 10.2 percent to 371,825 from 414,000 in 2023—well below prepandemic levels.

Many would say economic pressures, evolving social norms and the high cost of annulment—sometimes reaching half a million pesos—are keeping couples from tying the knot. Divorce is still off the table, making marriage a high-stakes gamble for many.

Or maybe, for some, it’s not economic in nature but purely philosophical.

What’s love gotta do with it?

Enter Michael de Jesus, president of the Development Bank of the Philippines, and his partner, actress, Miss Universe 1969 Gloria Diaz. They’ve been together for 29 years. And no, they’re still not married—even though Diaz’s past marriage with Bong Daza had long been annulled.

“I was always scared. But, actually, when you’re not married, you work harder. The bonds are just as tight,” De Jesus says.

They met in 1996 when he was 37 with thick black hair. Now it’s mostly white and thinning, he notes in jest, while Diaz, eight years his senior, still looks far younger.

“We just evolved. We didn’t really discuss it,” he adds.

Still, this doesn’t mean marriage is completely off the table, De Jesus insists.

“You don’t put definitive things on—you’ll never get married or you will. It just kinda happens or doesn’t happen,” he says.

For the couple, commitment trumps ceremony. They navigate life together daily, sharing financial, emotional and spiritual support—proving that decades-long love doesn’t necessarily need a wedding certificate.

“Whether or not we’re married, we’ll always be there for each other—financially, spiritually, everything. Physically, financially, spiritually, everything,” he says.

In this economy?

Still, of course, economic realities play a major role in why many couples delay or skip marriage.

An earlier report by the Inquirer, citing the 2022 National Demographic and Health Survey, found that the proportion of women aged 15 to 49 who were cohabiting or living with their partners “as if married” quadrupled over three decades—from just 5 percent in 1993 to 19 percent in 2022.

Meanwhile, the 2021 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Study found that about 2.4 million Filipinos aged 15 to 24 were already living with a partner outside of marriage.

Weddings, household expenses and raising children can be financially daunting—especially in a country where divorce is not available, and annulment can often cost more than the wedding itself.

As it is, Facebook users have pointed out that the tedious and expensive annulment process, coupled with the absence of divorce laws, is a major reason many Filipinos hesitate to get married.

“If there’s no way out, why go in?” one Facebook user quips.

De Jesus himself says he has witnessed many of his friends get separated.

“A lot of marriages are breaking up. It’s very easy to get married. It’s hard to stay married,” he says.

Another reason cited by netizens is domestic violence. Some note that certain abuses may only surface after couples are legally married—situations they could more easily leave if they remain in a cohabiting arrangement.

Call for laws

“Call on our legislators to pass laws that will improve and simplify the annulment process and strengthen further our current laws on violence against women and children (VAWC),” a netizen comments.

As of writing, divorce is still illegal in the Philippines, making it one of the last two countries in the world, along with Vatican City, without a divorce statute.

On the other hand, same-sex marriage remains contentious, meaning LGBTQ+ couples are still legally barred from marrying in the Philippines.

Some netizens note that if civil partnerships or same-sex marriage were legalized, the number of formal unions in the country could rise.

In any case, today’s marriage statistics reflects a broader trend: more Filipinos are choosing cohabitation over formal marriage for practical reasons, balancing long-term commitment with economic realities and evolving social norms.

Source: Inquirer

Can one marry without a valid marriage license?

As a general rule, couples intending to marry must secure a marriage license from the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either of them habitually resides.

Under Article 3 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines, a valid marriage license is one of the formal requisites of marriage, without which the marriage will be void. Hence, the parties to an intended marriage must secure the same.

However, the general rule is not without exception. Article 34 of the said Code provides that:

“Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage.”

The case of Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez (A.M. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001, Ponente: Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.) laid down the requisites in applying the provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation, to wit:

“For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must concur:

“1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage.

“2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other.

“3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of marriage.

“4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years (and are without legal impediment to marry each other).

“5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.”

The five-year period of cohabitation was further explained in the case of Niñal vs. Bayadog (GR 133778; 14 March 2000; Ponente: Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago), where the Supreme Court ruled that:

“Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years without the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as ‘husband and wife’ where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity — meaning no third party was involved at anytime within the 5 years and continuity — that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.”

Thus, a man and a woman may enter into a contract of marriage even without a marriage license, provided that they have been living together as husband and wife for the last five years prior to the date of the marriage, and that neither of them has any legal impediment to marry each other during the same period.

This continuous five-year common-law cohabitation must be characterized by exclusivity. Moreover, both of them must execute an affidavit stating this fact, and the solemnizing officer is also required to execute a sworn statement pronouncing that he has ascertained their qualifications and that he has found no legal impediment to said marriage.

Source: Manila Times

Exclusions from the absolute community of property and conjugal partnership of gains

Getting married, Congratulations! We explain the exclusions under the Absolute Community of Property and the Conjugal Partnership of Gains. Knowing these differences will help you make a decision in choosing the right property regime for you.

Under the Family Code of the Philippines, there are property regimes such as:

(1) Absolute Community of Property;

(2) Conjugal Partnership of Gains; and

(3) Complete Separation of Property.

Absolute Community Property (ACP) is the default property regime for couples married without marriage settlement (or a prenuptial agreement) on or after August 3, 1988, which is the date of effectivity of the Family Code. It includes all the properties owned by either spouse before the marriage and all the properties acquired during the marriage which are not otherwise excluded. (Article 91, Family Code) Properties falling under the ACP are owned by the spouses in common regardless of whose name appears on the title or who paid for it.

On the other hand, in the Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) regime, each spouse retains ownership of the property they brought into the marriage, but the income or fruits from these properties and all assets acquired during the marriage are jointly owned. (Article 106, Ibid.) Essentially, the spouses share the gains or profits acquired during the marriage under the CPG regime. The CPG can only apply if the spouses agree to it in a marriage settlement or pre-nuptial agreement before marriage. (Article 105, Family Code)

Regarding the exclusions from the ACP and the CPG, these are stated in the Family Code of the Philippines, specifically under Articles 92 and 109 of the said law, respectively.

Under Article 92 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the following shall be excluded from the ACP:

(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property;

(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of the community property;

(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property.

On the other hand, the following shall be excluded from the CPG under Article 109 of the said law:

(1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;

(2) That which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title;

(3) That which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter or by exchange with property belonging to only one of the spouses; and

(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the husband.” We hope that we were able to answer your queries.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate