The termination of a de facto union does not trigger a division of property comparable to the division that takes place upon divorce. There is no marital property regime, there is no automatic entitlement to one-half of the property, and the duration of the relationship, by itself, does not entitle either partner to one-half of the assets acquired by the other.<\/p>\n
This distinction becomes particularly relevant when, over the course of several years, one partner paid a larger share of the household expenses, financed property registered in the other partner\u2019s name, gave up professional opportunities, or assumed primary responsibility for domestic work and childcare.<\/p>\n
In such cases, the issue is not whether a de facto union creates a community of property. The issue is whether one partner\u2019s assets increased, or whether that partner avoided expenses, at the other partner\u2019s expense, without a legal basis that would justify retaining that benefit after the relationship ended.<\/p>\n
As a general rule, the answer is found in the general principles of civil law, particularly the rules governing co-ownership, obligations, and unjust enrichment. These issues must always be assessed through a careful analysis of the facts and the available evidence.<\/p>\n
No. Portuguese Law No. 7\/2001 of May 11, which establishes the legal framework for the protection of de facto unions in Portugal, does not create a property regime equivalent to a marital property regime. Nor does it provide for a comprehensive division of the partners\u2019 assets when the union ends.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, ownership of property continues to be determined under the general rules of law. Property belongs to the person who acquired it, without prejudice to:<\/p>\n
The Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice has repeatedly held that financial and property relations between de facto partners are governed by the general rules of property and obligations law. The termination of the union does not automatically convert individually owned property into jointly owned property. However, it does not prevent the courts from correcting unjustified transfers of wealth.<\/p>\n
Decree No. 349\/X of the Portuguese Parliament provided that, upon termination of the union and, exceptionally, on equitable grounds, a court could award compensation for serious financial losses resulting from personal or professional decisions made for the benefit of the partners\u2019 shared life.<\/p>\n
The decree was not enacted. Although the proposal is historically relevant because it expressly identified the problem, it is not part of current Portuguese law and cannot be relied upon as an independent legal basis for a claim.<\/p>\n
Under Article 473 of the Portuguese Civil Code, a person who is unjustifiably enriched at another person\u2019s expense must return the benefit that was unjustly obtained.<\/p>\n
The restitution obligation specifically includes anything received on a basis that subsequently ceased to exist or in anticipation of an outcome that did not occur.<\/p>\n
In a de facto union, the partners\u2019 shared life may initially provide a basis for certain payments or contributions. When the union ends, that basis may disappear, making it necessary to determine whether the other partner should be permitted to retain the benefit.<\/p>\n
For a restitution obligation to exist, the following elements must be established together:<\/p>\n
The amount of restitution does not necessarily correspond to the total amount spent by the claimant or to the full value of the property acquired by the enriched partner.<\/p>\n
Yes, but not automatically. Recent Portuguese case law recognizes that the exclusive or predominantly unilateral performance of domestic work, caregiving, and the supervision and education of children may constitute a genuine economic loss.<\/p>\n
At the same time, the other partner benefits from the free performance of those tasks, avoids expenses, and may be able to devote more time to professional activities and the accumulation of assets.<\/p>\n
In its decision of January 14, 2021, Case No. 1142\/11.2TBBCL.1.G1.S1, the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice held that, where there is a manifest imbalance in the allocation of household responsibilities, domestic work should not be treated merely as a natural obligation or the fulfillment of a moral duty.<\/p>\n
The burden assumed by one partner may be included among the contributions that enabled the other partner to acquire assets during the union.<\/p>\n
This approach was subsequently clarified in the October 12, 2023 decision in Case No. 241\/21.7T8TND.C1.S1. The Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice explained that it is not sufficient to prove that one partner performed household tasks.<\/p>\n
The claimant must show that the contribution was substantially greater and disproportionate in comparison with the other partner\u2019s contribution, demonstrating an excessive sacrifice of the claimant\u2019s own interests.<\/p>\n
In that particular case, the court did not find the required imbalance because the other partner paid all household expenses, while the claimant continued to earn income and maintain personal savings.<\/p>\n
Factors supporting a claim for compensation or restitution<\/strong><\/td>\n| Factors that may defeat or reduce the claim<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | almost exclusive responsibility for domestic work and caregiving<\/td>\n | a balanced allocation of household responsibilities and expenses<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | reduced working hours, an interruption in the claimant\u2019s career, or the loss of professional opportunities<\/td>\n | the claimant\u2019s continued career, income, and personal savings<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | enabling the other partner to pursue professional or business activities<\/td>\n | full payment of housing and household expenses by the other partner<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | a substantial contribution to the acquisition or increase in value of property owned by the other partner<\/td>\n | the existence of consideration, compensation, a gift, or an agreement that provides a legal basis for the contribution<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | a continuing and disproportionate sacrifice that exceeds the ordinary solidarity associated with a shared life<\/td>\n | insufficient evidence connecting the work performed to the alleged enrichment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | 4. What Other Contributions May Be Subject to Restitution?<\/h2>\nThe issue is not limited to domestic work. Portuguese courts have considered several other situations, including:<\/p>\n
|