The civil solidarity pact is based on a foundation of property rules, of which Article 515-5 of the Civil Code is the keystone. This text determines the fate of the assets acquired by each partner, both before and during the union. Since the reform of June 23, 2006, the default regime of the PACS is the separation of property, but the presumption of joint ownership introduced by Article 515-5 can create delicate property situations during a breakup or a real estate purchase.
Presumption of joint ownership under Article 515-5: a mechanism often underestimated
Under the legal regime of separation, each partner remains the owner of the assets they acquire personally. However, Article 515-5 provides that in case of doubt about the ownership of an asset, it is presumed to belong to both partners equally. This presumption of joint ownership applies when neither can prove their exclusive ownership.
In notarial practice, this rule poses a concrete problem. A partner who solely finances a movable asset (vehicle, valuable furniture) without keeping proof of purchase risks having that asset considered as jointly owned. To understand the provisions of Article 515-5 of the Civil Code in their real scope, it is necessary to distinguish this simple presumption (reversible by contrary proof) from the irrebuttable presumption that existed before 2006.
Paragraph 3 of Article 515-5 complements the system with a presumption of management power: each partner can manage alone the movable assets they hold individually. With respect to third parties, anyone acting on a movable asset is presumed to have the power to do so. This rule protects the fluidity of everyday transactions, but it does not cover acts of disposition regarding real estate.
Real estate purchase under PACS: why the half-presumption traps partners
The most common case of dispute related to Article 515-5 concerns real estate acquisition. Two partners in a PACS under the legal regime buy a property together, without specifying the shares in the notarial deed. In the event of separation, the presumption of joint ownership applies, even if one of them has financed a significantly larger share of the price.
Notaries now recommend specifying the shares in the acquisition deed (50/50, 60/40, 70/30) to reflect the reality of the financing. This precaution prevents the presumption of Article 515-5 from working against the partner who contributed the most. Without this clause, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming a share greater than half.
The distinction between Article 515-5 and Article 515-5-1 is fundamental at this stage. The former organizes the legal regime of separation with a presumption of residual joint ownership. The latter, Article 515-5-1, concerns the conventional regime of joint ownership that partners can choose in their PACS agreement. Under this regime, assets acquired during the PACS are jointly owned by operation of law, without the need to prove anything.
Separation of property or conventional joint ownership: two distinct property logics
The legal regime (Article 515-5) assumes that each retains what belongs to them, unless there is doubt. The conventional regime (Article 515-5-1) operates on the opposite principle: everything acquired together or separately during the PACS falls into joint ownership.
- Under the legal regime, a partner who purchases a property solely with their own funds remains the exclusive owner, provided they can prove it (invoice, named bank transfer, notarial deed)
- Under the conventional joint ownership regime, the same property would automatically be jointly owned equally, regardless of the actual financing
- Assets acquired before the conclusion of the PACS remain personal in both regimes, unless voluntarily contributed to the joint ownership mentioned in the agreement
This structure explains why the choice of property regime at the time of the PACS conclusion has direct consequences on the liquidation in case of a breakup.
PACS and inheritance: the major limitation that Article 515-5 does not cover
Article 515-5 organizes the property relations between living partners. However, the PACS does not grant any inheritance rights between partners. This point is a regular source of confusion. Unlike spouses, a PACS partner is not among the legal heirs of the other.
To remedy this absence, notaries advise drafting a will in favor of the surviving partner. The PACS partner benefits from an exemption from inheritance tax, making the testamentary bequest fiscally advantageous. Without a will, the surviving partner inherits nothing, regardless of the chosen property regime.
This articulation between the property framework during life (Articles 515-5 and following) and the absence of inheritance rights is probably the most misunderstood discrepancy in PACS law. Partners organize their assets like a couple, but inheritance law treats them as strangers to one another.
Comparison of PACS and marriage: what Article 515-5 does not allow
The property regime of the PACS, even in its conventional version, remains behind that of matrimonial regimes. Several mechanisms specific to marriage do not exist within the PACS framework:
- No universal community or community limited to acquisitions in the strict sense of matrimonial law
- No full attribution clause to the survivor, reserved for spouses married under community
- No protection of the family home comparable to that of Article 215 of the Civil Code, which prohibits one spouse from disposing of the marital home alone
- No compensatory allowance in case of PACS breakup, unlike divorce where financial imbalance can be corrected
Article 515-5 provides a framework for property management during the union, but it does not create equivalent protection to that of marriage in case of dissolution or death. Partners seeking enhanced protection must compensate through conventional arrangements (will, joint ownership clause, life insurance with designated beneficiary).
The framework established by Article 515-5 of the Civil Code works well for informed partners who anticipate the property consequences of their union. The difficulty arises from the fact that the majority of PACS partners are unaware of the regime that applies to them and discover the presumption of joint ownership or the absence of inheritance rights at the time of breakup or death. Consulting a notary at the time of concluding the PACS remains the most direct lever to avoid these situations.
