Common-law marriage

A de facto marriage is a relationship in which two people live together with the intention of marrying, are essentially living as husband and wife, and are generally considered to be a married couple, but because they have not filed a marriage registration, they are not considered to be a married couple under the law.

In the past, such relationships were considered to have no legal effect. However, in 1915 (Taisho 4), a ruling was made (by the Supreme Court's Civil Affairs Division) that a person who unjustly breaks a common-law marriage must pay damages, and since then, common-law marriages have gradually been protected by law as being equivalent to a legal marriage. For a relationship between a man and a woman to be legally protected as a common-law marriage, it is necessary that the relationship is based on the will of the parties involved, and that they are actually living together as a married couple, and this is sufficient. Therefore, a relationship between a man and a woman that is not recognized as living together as a married couple, such as a concubine relationship, is not protected as a common-law marriage. On the other hand, since it is sufficient that they are actually living together as a married couple, it is not necessary for the start of the relationship to take any formal form, such as a wedding ceremony.

As a legal effect of a common-law marriage, a party who unjustly breaks off a common-law marriage is liable to compensate the other party for all material and mental damages caused by the unjust termination. This is not merely a financial matter, but indicates that both parties have mutual rights and obligations regarding the continuation of the common-law marriage. In addition, a common-law marriage is generally recognized as having the status of marriage. In other words, it is recognized that there are obligations to live together, cooperate, and support each other, and obligations of chastity. In addition, common-law marriages are treated the same as legal married couples in terms of sharing marital expenses, joint responsibility for daily household chores, and the presumption of ownership of unidentified assets. It has long been recognized that a common-law wife can claim damages if her common-law husband dies as a result of the tort of another person, and in this respect they are treated the same as legal married couples. In various laws related to social insurance and social security, it is common practice to treat common-law married couples the same as legal married couples by including "persons who have not filed a marriage registration but are in a de facto marriage-like relationship" in the category of spouses.

As described above, common-law couples are now granted a legal status almost identical to that of legally married couples, but they are treated differently from legally married couples in the following two respects. First, a child born to a common-law couple is not considered a legitimate child. Therefore, the child will be under the custody of the mother and will take her surname. Secondly, if one spouse dies, the other spouse will not be granted the right of inheritance as a spouse. Therefore, for example, even if a wife has been with her husband for many years and has supported him, as long as their relationship remains a common-law marriage, she will be left penniless upon the death of her husband. However, if there are no heirs at all, the surviving other common-law partner can request a division of the estate from the family court (Civil Code Article 958-3), but if there is at least one heir, this request will not be granted.

A common-law marriage is dissolved automatically if the substance of a de facto marriage is lost, and there is no need to go through the procedure of divorce as in the case of a legal marriage. As mentioned above, if one party unjustly breaks a common-law marriage, the other party can claim damages, but there are various ways in which a common-law marriage is dissolved, and there are also cases in which the dissolution of the common-law marriage cannot be said to be unjust, or the cause of the dissolution cannot be said to be solely the fault of one party. In such cases, the claim for damages will not be allowed. Therefore, it has been argued that even in the case of the dissolution of a common-law marriage, a claim for property division should be allowed in the same way as in a divorce, and there are many precedents in which this is allowed.

[Yasuyuki Takahashi]

"Compilation of Research Materials on Common-Law Marriages: Case Law, Literature, and Others" by Takeo Ota (1987, Yuhikaku)" ▽ "The Current State and Issues of Common-Law Marriages" by Masaomi Takei (1991, Horitsu Bunkasha) " ▽ "Contemporary Common-Law Marriages" by Takeo Ota (1996, Yuhikaku)

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

婚姻の意思をもって同居し、実質的には夫婦としての生活をしていて世間でも夫婦と考えられてはいるが、婚姻届をしていないため法律上夫婦とはいえない事実上の夫婦関係。

　かつては、このような関係は法律上なんらの効果をも生じさせないものであるとされていた。しかし、1915年（大正4）に、内縁関係の不当な破棄者は損害賠償義務を負うとする判決（大審院民事連合部）が出され、それ以来、内縁は法律上の夫婦に準じた関係として、しだいに法的に保護されるようになった。男女の関係が内縁として法的に保護されるには、その関係が当事者の意思に基づいており、かつ、夫婦としての共同生活が現実に営まれていることが必要であり、それで足りる。したがって、夫婦としての共同生活があると認められない男女の関係、たとえば妾(めかけ)関係などは内縁として保護されない。他方、夫婦としての共同生活が現実に営まれていることで足りるのであるから、その開始にあたって結婚式が行われることなどの形式がとられることは必要でない。

　内縁の法的効果として、不当に内縁関係を破棄した一方当事者は、それによって相手方に生じた物質的・精神的な損害全部を賠償する責任を負う。このことは、単に金銭的な問題にとどまるわけでなく、内縁関係の継続につき両当事者が相互的に権利を有し、義務を負うことを示すものである。そのほか、内縁には婚姻の身分的な効果も一般に認められる。すなわち、同居・協力・扶助の義務、貞操義務などが認められる。また、婚姻費用の分担、日常の家事についての連帯責任、所属不明の財産の帰属の推定については、法律上の夫婦と同じ取扱いを受ける。内縁の夫が他人の不法行為で死亡した場合に、内縁の妻が損害賠償を請求できることも古くから認められており、この点でも法律上の夫婦と同じ取扱いである。社会保険や社会保障に関する各種の法律では「届出をしないが事実上婚姻と同様の関係にある者」を配偶者のなかに含ませることによって、内縁の夫婦を法律上の夫婦と同一に取り扱うことが通例となっている。

　以上のように、内縁の夫婦は法律上の夫婦とほとんどかわらない法的地位を認められるようになったが、次の2点で法律上の夫婦と異なった取扱いを受ける。第一に、内縁の夫婦間に出生した子は嫡出子とならない。したがって、その子は母の親権に属し、母の氏を称する。第二に、一方が死亡した場合に他方に配偶者としての相続権は認められない。したがって、たとえば、長年連れ添って夫に協力してきた妻であっても、両者の関係が内縁関係にとどまっている限り、妻は夫の死亡によって無一文でほうり出されることになる。もっとも、相続人がまったくいない場合には、生存する他方の内縁当事者は家庭裁判所に遺産の分与を請求できるが（民法958条の3）、相続人が1人でもいる場合にはこの請求は認められない。

　内縁は、事実上の夫婦たる実質が失われれば当然に解消され、法律上の夫婦のように離婚という手続をとる必要はない。一方が不当に内縁を破棄した場合に、他方が損害賠償を請求できることは前述のとおりだが、内縁解消の態様は多様であって、内縁の解消が不当といえない場合や、解消の原因が一方だけにあるといえない場合もある。このような場合には、損害賠償の請求は認められないことになる。そこで、内縁解消の場合にも、離婚に準じて財産分与の請求を認めるべきであるとの主張がなされ、それを認める家事審判例も多い。

［高橋康之］

『太田武男著『内縁問題研究資料集成　判例・文献・その他』（1987・有斐閣）』▽『武井正臣著『内縁婚の現状と課題』（1991・法律文化社）』▽『太田武男著『現代の内縁問題』（1996・有斐閣）』

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例