FALSE
What is mine is yours. “Chako ni changu,” they say, in the language of the Lion King, where everything is beautiful! Outside the cartoon, it is not quite what the law actually provides.
For convenience, imagine a couple composed of Mr. and Mrs. The Mrs is the owner of the residence. She has been living in it with the Mr. for ages and they are de-facto spouses, therefore, they are not married or civilly united.
The Mister, who participates in the expenditures, in the mortgage payments and in making improvements to the property, also considers himself to be owner of the dwelling he has lived in for so long and to which he contributes.
Unfortunately, the Mr. will have a nasty surprise in case of separation: the law provides no right of ownership to a spouse who is not the owner of the property in which they both live, whether he be married, in civil union or de-facto spouse, regardless of the length of the union.
For married or civil-union couples, there is a little more protection. Indeed, there is the family heritage, thus creating an interest in the family residence for the spouse who does not own that property. The family residence is the place where family members dwell while exercising their main activities. In our little story, the Gentleman, if he were married or civilly united with the Lady and in the event where the house was acquired by the Mrs during the marriage or the civil union or beforehand, but if there remains a balance of the mortgage to be paid at the time of the union, the Mr would then be entitled to a certain portion of the value of the family home in the event of bodily separation, dissolution or nullity of the marriage or civil union, all of this according to a calculation provided by the law. It concerns indeed a claim, and not a property right.
Moreover, there are some restrictions in the law regarding what the spouse has the right to do with the family home without the consent of his/her better half. The law differs according to the number of accommodation(s) that the married or civilly united owner can do with his/her property without the consent of his spouse if one of the dwellings serves as a family residence. Alienating the property (by selling or assigning it), by investing it with a real right (such as a mortgage) or renting it to a third party results in a situation in which the part reserved for usage by the family could become subject to spousal consent, subject to sanctions or to the nullity of the deed and/or of obtaining damages with interest.
In all of these cases, it is important to understand what would happen in the event of separation or death ... if one of the two persons in the couple does not own the property, or if both are owners but the contribution to the costs is uneven. It is important to know that if the marriage or civil union provides a little bit of protection in this regard, de-facto spouses also have the opportunity to provide by convention the responsibilities of each one in the couple regarding expenditures, unequal separation of property or of certain assets based upon the contribution of each in case of rupture.