La sociedad convivencial y la regulación patrimonial en las uniones de hecho: Implicancias jurídicas en la dignidad humana y la igualdad de los convivientes
Cohabitation (unión de hecho), constitutionally recognized within the Peruvian legal system, produces personal and patrimonial effects similar to those of marriage. However, unlike marriage, cohabiting partners are restricted from freely choosing a patrimonial regime other than the community of pr...
Gorde:
| Egile Nagusiak: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formatua: | Online |
| Hizkuntza: | gaztelania |
| Argitaratua: |
Editorial Grupo AEA
2026
|
| Gaiak: | |
| Sarrera elektronikoa: | https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/173370 |
| Etiketak: |
Etiketarik gabe, Izan zaitez lehena erregistro honi etiketa jartzen!
|
| Gaia: | Cohabitation (unión de hecho), constitutionally recognized within the Peruvian legal system, produces
personal and patrimonial effects similar to those of marriage. However, unlike marriage, cohabiting partners
are restricted from freely choosing a patrimonial regime other than the community of property (sociedad de
gananciales). This normative restriction raises issues of equity, private autonomy, and protection of
patrimonial rights, particularly when there are separate assets acquired before or during the period of
cohabitation. Objective: To analyze the legal impediment that prevents cohabiting partners from opting for a
patrimonial regime other than the community of property and its impact on the infringement of patrimonial
rights within de facto unions. Methodology: The research adopts a qualitative approach, with a descriptive–
analytical and documentary design, based on the analysis of constitutional and civil regulations, specialized
legal doctrine, and relevant case law related to de facto unions and patrimonial regimes. Results: The study
shows that the Peruvian legal framework limits the autonomy of will of cohabiting partners by mandating the
community of property regime, generating situations of legal uncertainty and potential patrimonial harm,
especially in cases of dissolution of the cohabitation or death of one partner. Conclusions: The legal
impediment to choosing a patrimonial regime violates principles such as equality before the law and
contractual freedom. It is therefore necessary to reconsider the current legal framework in order to allow de
facto unions to choose a patrimonial regime consistent with their economic and social reality. |
|---|