Living in a de facto union for decades is not enough, in itself, to guarantee a widow’s pension. This is what happened to a woman in Spain who, after 26 years of living with her partner, saw her pension request rejected by Social Security.
The decision was confirmed by the Andalusian Superior Court of Justice (TSJA), which considered that, despite the long relationship, the formal requirements required by law were not met.
According to Notícias Trabajo, a Spanish website specializing in legal and labor matters, the woman presented several documents to prove the relationship, such as certificates of joint residence, invoices, service contracts and testimonies, but the court understood that these elements do not replace the legal requirement to formalize the union.
26 years of coexistence were not enough
The case began in March 2021, when the woman requested a widow’s pension after the death of her partner.
Despite having demonstrated a stable and lasting coexistence, Spanish Social Security rejected the request based on article 221 of the General Social Security Law, which determines that only couples formally registered as a de facto union or with a public document signed by both partners at least two years before death are entitled to the pension.
The Social Court No. 5 of Granada ruled in favor of Social Security, and the case was later referred to the TSJ of Andalusia, which upheld the decision. According to the ruling, “mere coexistence, however prolonged, is not enough to generate the right if there is no formal proof of the union”.
The law requires a formal bond
The explains that, according to Spanish jurisprudence, there are two criteria that must be met simultaneously: continuous coexistence for five years and the formal existence of the de facto union, proven through registration or public document.
The court recognized that the woman proved the first requirement, but not the second. Without official registration of the relationship, the law does not allow granting the benefit. Thus, even after 26 years of life together, the request ended up being denied.
A warning for those living in a de facto union
The Andalusian TSJ’s decision served as a warning to many couples who live together without registering the relationship. Although cohabitation is a socially recognized fact, Spanish law continues to require documentary proof for the purposes of social benefits.
The case highlights the difference between emotional reality and the legal framework, reinforcing that, in matters of pensions, the legal bond is decisive. Even a shared life for 26 years was not enough to guarantee the right to a widow’s pension.
And in Portugal, what would happen?
In Portugal, the situation could have a different outcome. Portuguese Social Security also provides for the right to a survivor’s pension, the national equivalent of a widow’s pension, for those living in a de facto union, but does not require official registration of the relationship.
According to Law No. 7/2001, the coexistence of two people in conditions similar to those of spouses for more than two years is recognized as a de facto union, as long as neither of them is married. To access the pension, it is necessary to prove this coexistence through a declaration issued by the parish council, supported by testimonies or official documents.
Portuguese legislation also allows the survivor to prove the link with other elements, such as a shared tax address, joint accounts or common expenses. The essential difference is that, in Portugal, the lack of formal registration does not automatically preclude the right, with proof of coexistence being the decisive factor.
Therefore, unlike Spain, a person who lived in a de facto union without registration for 26 years could, in principle, be entitled to the pension, as long as they were able to document the relationship.
The distinction between the two systems shows how bureaucracy and legal formalism can determine access to fundamental rights. In Spain, the lack of registration was enough to deny the pension; in Portugal, the same case would probably have a different ending.
Also read:
