Forms of family in Colombia and their rights: marriage, de facto marital union (unión marital), same-sex couples, single-parent families and families formed by upbringing (familias de crianza)

No one forms a family with the law in mind. People marry, live together, raise children of their own or of others, keep a household going alone or as a couple, and only much later —faced with an inheritance, a pension, a separation or an illness— do they discover that the form their family takes determines which rights they can claim and how they must prove them. This guide explains, with the Constitution and the case law in hand, which forms of family the Colombian legal system recognizes and what specific rights flow from each one.

The starting point is encouraging: in Colombia there is no single “legitimate” family alongside others of a second class. The 1991 Constitution and more than three decades of case law have built a clear principle: constitutional protection covers the family as a reality, whatever the door through which it came into being. What does change from one form to another is the way the bond is established and the specific regime governing certain property rights.

That is the purpose of this family law pillar: to move from the general idea —that the family is protected— to the useful detail: what the law recognizes for spouses, for compañeros permanentes (permanent partners in a Colombian de facto union), for same-sex couples, for those who head a household alone and for de facto parental families (familias de crianza); what never changes; and what is worth formalizing today so as not to litigate tomorrow. To understand first what this branch of law is for, you may complement this reading with the importance of family law.

The essentials

If you had to keep only the bare essentials of this guide, keep this:

• The Constitution protects the family for what it is, not for its label. Article 42 accepts that the family arises “through natural or legal bonds”: marriage, cohabitation, adoption, upbringing. The State must protect it comprehensively in every case.
• Marriage produces effects from the very first day. Civil status of married, an automatic sociedad conyugal (the statutory marital property regime), inheritance rights and porción conyugal (the surviving spouse's statutory share), with no waiting periods and no evidence beyond the civil registry.
• The de facto marital union (unión marital de hecho, a Colombian statutory institution; not common-law marriage) also creates a family and rights, but it requires proof: the sociedad patrimonial (the union's statutory property regime) is presumed after two years of cohabitation, and the remaining rights require proving the status of compañero permanente.
• Same-sex couples today have the same rights: unión marital and sociedad patrimonial (Sentencia C-075 de 2007), survivor's pension (C-336 de 2008), status as a family (C-577 de 2011) and civil marriage (SU-214 de 2016).
• Children are always equal among themselves. Children born within marriage, born outside marriage and adopted children have identical rights and obligations, including inheritance (Ley 29 de 1982).
• The familia de crianza exists in law, with effects recognized above all in social security and reparation; but on its own it does not create inheritance rights: adoption and a will are what serve that purpose.
• Formalizing protects you. Declaring the union, registering a religious marriage, entering into capitulaciones (marital property agreements) or a will, and setting up protections over the home turn arguable rights into rights that are easy to prove.

The family in the Constitution: a single protection, several entry points

The whole of Colombian family law rests on a few constitutional provisions that are worth reading directly, because everything else follows from them. Article 5 provides that the State “protects the family as the basic institution of society”, and does so “without any discrimination”. Article 42 defines it and requires its comprehensive protection. And article 13 prohibits discrimination on grounds that include “family origin”: an expression the Corte Constitucional has taken seriously every time a rule treated a child, a couple or a household differently because of the way it was formed.

Note the structure of the definition: the family is constituted “by natural or legal bonds”. The legal bond is, above all, marriage; adoption as well. The natural bond is free and responsible cohabitation, procreation, upbringing. The Constitution does not rank those entry points: they all lead to the same place, a constitutionally protected family. On that basis, the Corte Constitucional has repeatedly held that the concept of family is broad and dynamic, and that the State cannot protect only the traditional model.

Article 42 also contains three rules that structure everything that follows. First: equality within the couple —the same rights and duties for both—. Second: equality among children, “born within the marriage or outside it, adopted or conceived naturally or with scientific assistance”, all with “equal rights and duties”. Third: the referral to civil law for the forms of marriage and its dissolution, with one key rule: religious marriages have civil effects, and those effects cease upon divorce in accordance with civil law.

The picture is completed by two articles that protect specific members: article 43, which, in addition to declaring equality between women and men, requires that “the State shall give special support to women heads of household”; and article 44, which lists the fundamental rights of children —among them “to have a family and not to be separated from it” and to receive “care and love”— and closes with a rule of precedence: “The rights of children prevail over the rights of others.” That closing rule explains much of the case law on familias de crianza and household headship that we shall see below.

Civil and religious marriage: the legal bond par excellence

Marriage is the form of family with the oldest and most complete legal framework. The Código Civil (Colombian Civil Code) defines it as a solemn contract, and from that solemnity comes its main practical advantage: it is proved with a single document —the civil marriage record— and produces all its effects from the day it is celebrated, with no waiting periods.

What specific effects does marrying produce? The first is civil status: the parties become married, a condition evidenced before any authority or entity with the civil registry record. The second is personal: the reciprocal duties of cohabitation, fidelity, succour and mutual assistance that civil law assigns to spouses. The third is patrimonial and operates by operation of law: the sociedad conyugal.

The sociedad conyugal often takes by surprise those who marry without advice: it requires no additional signature, does not depend on how much each spouse contributes, and is settled in equal halves over the gananciales when the marriage ends by divorce or death, or when the spouses dissolve it by mutual agreement. Anyone who wants a different regime —separate estates, for example— must agree it by capitulaciones before the marriage, by escritura pública (public deed). No option is “better” in the abstract: it depends on each couple's situation, and it is best decided on an informed basis.

As for religious marriage, the constitutional rule is generous and clear: marriages celebrated before a recognized religious denomination have full civil effects, on the terms set by law. In practice there is one step that must not be omitted: registering the religious marriage in the civil registry, because without registration the bond exists before the church but does not produce its effects normally as against third parties —banks, notarías, judges, pension funds—. And the flip side is also in article 42: “the civil effects of every marriage shall cease upon divorce in accordance with civil law”, so that a religious marriage is likewise dissolved civilly by divorce; the procedure, its grounds and its effects are explained in divorce in Colombia.

Unión marital de hecho: the family born of cohabitation

The second great entry point to family is cohabitation. For more than a century, couples who lived together without marrying had no legal status at all: the law ignored them and society disparagingly called it “concubinato”. Ley 54 de 1990 changed that picture and gave them a name, a definition and a property regime.

It is worth separating two levels that are often confused. The first is the unión marital de hecho itself: it exists from the moment the couple begin a permanent and exclusive community of life —a single household, an intention of permanence, mutual support—, with no time requirement whatsoever. The second is the sociedad patrimonial: the regime of common property that the law presumes when that union completes two years. Personal rights and social security rights flow from the union; rights over the assets acquired during the shared life flow from the sociedad patrimonial.

Two clarifications prevent costly mistakes. First: completing two years of cohabitation does not make anyone married. The unión marital is not an automatic marriage and does not change the partners' status to “married”; it is a form of family of its own, with a regime of its own. Second: the sociedad patrimonial of compañeros permanentes and the sociedad conyugal of married couples are similar, but they are not identical —they differ in the date on which they arise, in part of their composition and in the way they are claimed— and the action to seek the liquidation of the sociedad patrimonial is subject to time limits that should not be allowed to expire. For that reason, anyone ending a long period of cohabitation should seek advice promptly.

How is the union declared and proved? The law allows three routes: escritura pública before a notary by mutual consent, a conciliation record, or a court judgment where there is no agreement. The step by step —requirements, documents, the effects of each route and what to do if the other partner denies the union— is developed in the guide the de facto marital union (unión marital de hecho, a Colombian statutory institution; not the same as common-law marriage), which is the natural complement to this section.

Same-sex couples: the line of case law that equalised rights

No recent transformation of Colombian family law is as profound as the one brought about by same-sex couples. It was not the work of Congress: it was the Corte Constitucional that carried it out, step by step, correcting what the Court itself called a protection deficit. The sequence is worth knowing, because each judgment opened up a specific right that can be claimed today.

The first step was patrimonial. In 2007, the Court reviewed Ley 54 de 1990 —which defined the unión marital as being “between a man and a woman”— and concluded that excluding same-sex couples from the regime of unión marital and sociedad patrimonial infringed dignity and equality.

Social security rights came next: Sentencia C-336 de 2008 (M.P. Clara Inés Vargas Hernández) extended the survivor's pension under Ley 100 de 1993 to same-sex compañeros permanentes, and Sentencia C-029 de 2009 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil) reviewed as a whole dozens of civil, criminal, labor and social protection provisions that referred to “compañeros permanentes”, and made them conditional on their covering same-sex couples equally: from protection measures against domestic violence to immigration, housing, and truth and reparation rights.

The third step went to the heart of the matter: are they a family? The answer came in 2011.

The line closed in 2016, when the Court unified its case law in the face of the divided interpretations that had arisen among judges and notaries.

The practical result today is equal treatment: a same-sex couple may opt for the unión marital de hecho or for civil marriage, with a sociedad patrimonial or a sociedad conyugal, inheritance rights, porción conyugal, health cover, survivor's pension and adoption, on the same terms as any other couple. The differences that still appear in practice —an entity that asks for additional requirements, a form that does not contemplate the case— are administrative resistance, not an absence of rights: they are corrected by invoking this line of case law.

Single-parent families and household headship: reinforced protection

A very large share of Colombian households is headed by a single adult —in most cases a woman— who takes on alone the upbringing and support of her children. The Constitution does not regard those households as incomplete families: they are full families, constituted by natural bonds, and they receive additional protection, not lesser protection.

That status gives rise to specific benefits under different regimes: preferential access to State programs for housing, education, credit and entrepreneurship; reinforced employment protection in situations such as the retén social (the statutory shield against dismissal in restructurings); and special consideration in judicial and administrative decisions that may affect the household. The case law has also extended several of these protections to a man who finds himself in the same situation of sole headship of the household, because their ultimate basis is not the adult's gender but the protection of the children, whose rights —recall article 44— prevail.

Two useful clarifications. First: household headship does not depend on civil status —she may be single, married, separated or widowed— but on the reality of assuming alone, on a permanent basis, responsibility for the household. Second: the absence of the other parent releases him from nothing; his child support obligations remain intact and are enforceable in court. Single parenthood protects the household that exists; it does not extinguish the duties of the one who left.

Familia de crianza: when reality creates the bond

There are families born neither of marriage, nor of a couple's union, nor of an adoption process, but of the plain and sustained fact of raising a child: the grandparents who brought up their grandson, the aunt who took in her orphaned niece as a daughter, the stepfather who was, in practice, the only father. Colombian law has given them a name —familia de crianza— and a protection built entirely by the case law.

The recognized effects are concentrated on two fronts. In social security, the Corte Constitucional has granted protection to hijos and padres de crianza so that they may obtain the survivor's pension or the sustitución pensional (the transfer of a pension to a survivor) where they prove that material bond. And in matters of reparation, the Consejo de Estado has accepted for years that the members of a familia de crianza may claim damages for the death or injury of their loved one, because grief does not distinguish between formal and real kinship.

Knowing what this arrangement does not give you matters as much as knowing what it does. Familia de crianza (the de facto parent-child bond formed by raising a child) does not, on its own, change civil status or create legal kinship: that still belongs to adoption. What did change is inheritance standing. Since Ley 2388 de 2024, members of the familia de crianza take part in both testate and intestate succession as heirs or legatees. The argument has moved to the evidentiary ground: whoever claims must prove the caregiving bond, and it is that proof which decides these cases. Anyone who wants a child raised as their own to hold the full rights of a child has two safe routes: adoption, which creates kinship with all its effects, or a will, which assigns assets within the freedom the law allows. Ignoring that difference leaves the person who was raised as a child unprotected at the worst possible moment.

Multispecies family: when the pet is family too

For many households, companion animals are not “things” but members of the family, and the law has begun to recognize it. Ley 1774 de 2016 amended article 655 of the Código Civil to declare that animals are sentient beings —not mere property— and deserve special protection. On that basis, the Tribunal Superior de Bogotá (Sala Mixta, order of 6 October 2023, M.P. Carlos Andrés Guzmán Díaz) used the term “familia multiespecie” (multispecies family) when deciding who was to determine visits to a pet after its owners separated.

It is a line still under construction: the Corte Constitucional opened a public hearing on the subject in November 2023 and has not yet laid down a definitive rule. For that reason, the prudent course today is to agree matters in writing —whom the animal lives with, expenses and visits—, as one would with any family agreement; that document is the best evidence if disagreement arises later on.

Where there is no sociedad patrimonial, there may still be a sociedad de hecho (a de facto partnership)

The sociedad patrimonial under Ley 54 de 1990 requires, as a general rule, two years of cohabitation. What if the relationship did not reach that point, or there was an impediment to its arising? The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Sala de Casación Civil) has recognized, in settled case law, that between compañeros or cohabiting partners there may also exist a sociedad de hecho where three elements concur: reciprocal contributions —of money, assets or work, including domestic work—, an intention to profit (to share in the gains and in the losses) and affectio societatis, that is, the intention to associate in a common economic venture, distinct from the mere affection of the couple.

Having lived together is not enough: those elements must be proved. Properly established, it is a valuable property route for someone who helped build what ended up in the other partner's name, even where the sociedad patrimonial under Ley 54 does not apply.

Children: complete equality, whatever the form of family

If anything is definitively settled in Colombian family law, it is equality among children. It was not always so: for much of the twentieth century, the Código Civil distinguished between “legitimate”, “natural” and “illegitimate” children, with different inheritance rights and even offensive labels. That architecture was dismantled in two stages: Ley 29 de 1982 equalised inheritance rights, and the 1991 Constitution raised equality to a constitutional rule.

The practical consequences are direct. In inheritance, all children take in the first order of succession and receive equal shares: the child born outside marriage does not receive less, the adopted child is not second class, the child born of a casual relationship inherits just as the child born within the marriage does. In child support, the parents' obligation is identical towards all their children. In matters of surname, upbringing and care, the law draws no distinction. Any clause, custom or family pressure to the contrary is simply unlawful, and gives way to article 13 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of “family origin”.

The other side of equality among children is equality in the duties of parents, and it does not depend on the form the couple takes: married, compañeros permanentes, separated or never having lived together, both parents owe upbringing, child support, education and care. Custody, patria potestad (parental authority), child support and visitation arrangements are determined by the same criterion —the best interests of the child— whatever the adults' romantic history. That is why this pillar insists: the form of family changes rights between the adults; it never changes the rights of the children.

What specific rights the law recognizes for each form of couple

Let us now bring the comparison down to the rights that generate the most enquiries: support, property, inheritance, health cover and pensions. The following table summarizes the current state of the law for spouses and compañeros permanentes —of the same or of a different sex—, with the statutory and case law basis for each.

Three keys to reading it without drawing hasty conclusions. First: the column for compañeros permanentes is the result of rulings of conditional constitutionality —the word “cónyuge” in those provisions is understood to refer also to the compañero or compañera permanente, of a different sex or of the same sex—, so that the right exists, but the union will almost always have to be proved in order to exercise it.

Second key: in the survivor's pension, the rights of spouses and of compañeros converge, but cohabitation governs. The law requires proof of effective marital life —as a rule, not less than five continuous years— and it even contemplates simultaneous cohabitation, in which case the pension may be divided in proportion to the time lived together. Labor case law has refined the nuances according to who dies and in what capacity; it is a terrain where professional support changes outcomes, because the evidence of cohabitation is built during the person's lifetime, not afterwards.

Third key: the two instruments that protect the home —patrimonio de familia inembargable and afectación a vivienda familiar (the family-dwelling encumbrance)— are within reach of married couples and of compañeros alike, and they are among the most effective and least used tools in family law. The first shields the property against future attachments; the second prevents one member of the couple alone from selling or mortgaging the shared home without the other's signature. If your estate already includes the family home, some savings and perhaps a business, joint planning —including a will and, depending on the case, capitulaciones— is developed in when to organize your estate.

What does not change with the form of family

After so much nuance, it is worth pinning down what does not vary: a core of rules that applies equally to every form of family, and knowing it prevents abuses and unfounded fears.

The duties towards children are identical. Child support, upbringing, education, care, custody and patria potestad do not depend on whether the parents married, lived together or never lived together at all. No father can take shelter in the informality of the couple in order to default; no mother loses rights in relation to her children for not having married.

Protection against domestic violence covers everyone. The protection measures under Ley 294 de 1996 —whose article 2 defines the family with the same breadth as constitutional article 42— cover spouses, compañeros permanentes, same-sex couples, children and the other members of the family unit. The honour, dignity and privacy of the family are inviolable in every case, and any form of violence within it, says the Constitution, is regarded as destructive of its harmony and shall be punished. The specific mechanisms for activating that protection —comisarías de familia (family commissioners' offices), protection measures, referral pathways— are explained in the family protection pathways.

Equality within the couple is the same. The household is directed jointly, the duties are reciprocal and no member is subordinate to the other: the rule in article 42 —equality of rights and duties of the couple— draws no distinction between married couples and compañeros.

The dignity of the chosen form admits of no degrees. Neither the authorities nor private parties may treat a family as inferior because of its origin: a tenancy, a service, a school place or a job may not be denied on account of the form of the family. Article 13 of the Constitution, with its prohibition on discrimination based on family origin, supports anyone facing treatment of that kind.

How each form is proved, and why formalizing protects you

In family law, having a right and being able to exercise it are two different things, and the distance between them is called evidence. The practical rule is simple: the more informal the form of family, the greater the evidentiary effort it demands. This table summarizes it.

The table teaches a single lesson: formalizing is not distrust, it is protection. The couple who declare their union by escritura pública spare themselves, when the moment comes, a court proceeding to show a pension fund or a succession that the union existed and when it began. The family that registered its religious marriage avoids arguments at banks and notarías. Whoever set up the afectación a vivienda familiar sleeps soundly knowing that the house will not be sold without their signature. And whoever adopted a hijo de crianza or made a will in his favour left him rights, not lawsuits.

Think of the two situations in which this evidence becomes critical. The first is death: the succession is opened and whoever claims to be a compañero permanente must prove it, sometimes against children or siblings of the deceased who deny it; an escritura declaring the unión marital signed years earlier is worth its weight in gold at that moment, and sound support in the succession —such as the support explained in the importance of a lawyer in succession proceedings— prevents grief from turning into litigation. The second is the break-up: liquidating the sociedad patrimonial requires showing when the union began, and each year of difference may mean assets that enter or leave the common estate.

What NOT to do

Experience makes it possible to anticipate the costliest mistakes. Avoid them:

• Do not let years of cohabitation go by without declaring the union. The right will exist, but proving it later —or having your heirs prove it— may require a full court proceeding, with witnesses and documents spanning a lifetime.
• Do not begin cohabiting without resolving the previous sociedad conyugal. If you or your partner were married, an earlier sociedad conyugal that has not been dissolved blocks the arising of the sociedad patrimonial of the new union. Dissolving it is a procedure; failing to do so is a serious property problem.
• Do not confuse separating in fact with dissolving the sociedad conyugal. Until it is dissolved by divorce, by deed or by judgment, the sociedad conyugal remains alive, and the assets you acquire may end up being shared with someone you separated from years ago.
• Do not assume that a religious marriage “registers itself”. Check that the record was entered in the civil registry; without that entry, its effects as against third parties are left up in the air.
• Do not wait until death to settle the position of a hijo de crianza. Adoption or a will are granted during your lifetime; afterwards, what is left is litigation with an uncertain outcome.
• Do not sign deeds, waivers of gananciales or capitulaciones without independent advice. They are valid acts and sometimes advisable, but irreversible; understand what you are giving up before signing.
• Do not leave your partner out of social security through carelessness. Enrolling them in your EPS as a member of the family group and keeping the evidence of cohabitation up to date costs nothing and protects when it is most needed.

Common myths

“After two years of cohabitation we are married.” False. Cohabitation never turns into marriage. After two years the sociedad patrimonial is presumed —an economic effect—, but civil status does not change and the two regimes remain different.

“Since we are not married, if my partner dies I do not inherit.” False. Since Sentencia C-238 de 2012, the surviving compañero permanente —of the same or of a different sex— has the same vocación hereditaria as a spouse. The challenge is not the right but the evidence: that is why a union declared during the couple's lifetime is so valuable.

“A church marriage is worth nothing before the law.” False. Religious marriages have full civil effects once entered in the civil registry, and they are dissolved civilly by divorce like any other marriage.

“Children born outside marriage inherit less.” False since 1982. All children —born within marriage, born outside marriage and adopted— have equal rights and obligations, including inheritance in equal shares.

“Same-sex couples have a union with fewer rights.” False. Between 2007 and 2016 the Corte Constitucional equalised unión marital, sociedad patrimonial, health cover, pension, inheritance, porción conyugal and civil marriage.

“I raised a child as my own, so he will inherit as a child.” Today they can, but it has to be proved. Ley 2388 de 2024 recognised members of the familia de crianza (the de facto parent-child bond formed by raising a child) as heirs or legatees in both testate and intestate succession (article 7). Before that statute, the only routes were adoption or a will. Recognition does not operate on its own: it requires proof of the caregiving bond, and that proof is built during the parties' lifetime, not once the estate has already been opened.

Checklist: protect your form of family in law

A twenty-minute review that can save you years of litigation. Check:

• Clear civil status: is your marriage —civil or religious— entered in the civil registry? Was your earlier divorce registered and the sociedad conyugal dissolved?
• Union declared: if you live together, do you have an escritura pública or a conciliation record declaring the unión marital and its start date?
• Social security up to date: does your spouse or compañero appear in your EPS as a member of the family group? Are your pension and insurance beneficiaries up to date?
• Home protected: does the family home have an afectación a vivienda familiar or a patrimonio de familia inembargable constituted over it?
• Children with settled filiation: are all your children acknowledged and registered? Are the child support amounts and custody arrangements formalized by conciliation or by judgment?
• Hijos de crianza secured: if you are raising someone who is not legally your child, have you considered adoption or included him in your will?
• Headship papers: if you head your household alone, do you have the declaración de cabeza de familia before a notary in order to reach the programs the law reserves for you?
• Documents gathered: civil registry records, deeds, declarations and judgments in a single place, known to someone you trust.

In short: the family you have is already protected; formalizing it protects it better

The 1991 Constitution took a decision of substance that the case law has honoured: to protect the real family, the one formed by natural or legal bonds, with no hierarchy between marriage, cohabitation, a single-parent household or crianza. On that basis, statutes and judgments equalised the specific rights —property, inheritance, health cover, pension— for all couples and all children. What the law cannot do for you is the practical part: declaring, registering, enrolling, making a will, shielding the home. That task is yours, and done in time it turns rights into peace of mind.

If your family is facing one of those crossroads today —formalizing a union, liquidating a property regime, claiming a pension or an inheritance, protecting a hijo de crianza—, at Cafore Abogados we study your case seriously and tell you frankly what applies and what does not. You may write to us or call 313 8411825.

Laws and case law cited

• Constitución Política, art. 5 — the State “protects the family as the basic institution of society”, without any discrimination. Source
• Constitución Política, art. 13 — equality before the law and a prohibition on discrimination on grounds that include “national or family origin”. Source
• Constitución Política, art. 42 — the family as the fundamental nucleus of society; it is constituted by natural or legal bonds; equality within the couple and equality among children; civil effects of religious marriage and their cessation upon divorce. Source
• Constitución Política, arts. 43 and 44 — special support for women heads of household; fundamental rights of children and their precedence. Source
• Código Civil, art. 113 — definition of marriage as a solemn contract. Source
• Código Civil, arts. 250, 411, 1040, 1046, 1047, 1230 and 1774 — equality among children; support obligations; orders of intestate succession; porción conyugal; sociedad conyugal arising from the mere fact of the marriage. Source
• Ley 54 de 1990, arts. 1 and 2 (as amended by Ley 979 de 2005 and Ley 2447 de 2025) — unión marital de hecho, compañeros permanentes and the presumption of a sociedad patrimonial after two years. Source
• Ley 29 de 1982 — equality of rights and obligations of legitimate, extramarital and adopted children, and adjustment of the orders of succession. Source
• Ley 82 de 1993, art. 2 (as amended by Ley 1232 de 2008) — definition and protection of the woman head of household; declaration before a notary. Source
• Ley 100 de 1993, arts. 47, 74 and 163 (art. 13, Ley 797 de 2003) — beneficiaries of the survivor's pension and the family group covered in health care. Source
• Ley 70 de 1931 and Ley 495 de 1999 — patrimonio de familia inembargable, extended to compañeros permanentes. Source
• Ley 258 de 1996, arts. 1, 3 and 12 — afectación a vivienda familiar, the requirement of both signatures, and extension to compañeros permanentes with two years of union. Source
• Ley 294 de 1996, art. 2 — definition of family for the purposes of protection against domestic violence. Source
• Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-1033 de 2002 (M.P. Jaime Córdoba Triviño) — support payments between compañeros permanentes (art. 411-1 of the Código Civil, upheld subject to a conditional interpretation). Source
• Constitutional Court, Judgment C-075 of 2007 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil) — the regime of Ley 54 de 1990 also applies to same-sex couples. Source
• Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-521 de 2007 (M.P. Clara Inés Vargas Hernández) — the two-year union requirement for enrolling a compañero permanente in health coverage struck down as unconstitutional (art. 163, Ley 100 de 1993). Source
• Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-336 de 2008 (M.P. Clara Inés Vargas Hernández) — survivor's pension for same-sex compañeros permanentes. Source
• Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-029 de 2009 (M.P. Rodrigo Escobar Gil) — dozens of provisions on compañeros permanentes upheld as a whole on condition that they also cover same-sex couples. Source
• Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-283 de 2011 (M.P. Jorge Ignacio Pretelt Chaljub) — porción conyugal for compañeros permanentes, including same-sex couples. Source
• Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-577 de 2011 (M.P. Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo) — same-sex couples constitute a family; call on Congress to legislate and authorization to formalize the bond from 20 June 2013. Source
• Constitutional Court, Judgment C-238 of 2012 (M.P. Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo) — inheritance rights of the compañero or compañera permanente, of the opposite or of the same sex (arts. 1040, 1046 and 1047 of the Código Civil). Source
• Corte Constitucional, Sentencia SU-214 de 2016 (M.P. Alberto Rojas Ríos) — civil marriage between same-sex couples; order directed at judges, notaries and civil registrars. Source
• Corte Constitucional, Sentencias T-495 de 1997, T-074 de 2016 and T-525 de 2016 (M.P. Carlos Gaviria Díaz, Alberto Rojas Ríos and Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio) — recognition of, and criteria for, the familia de crianza; hijos de crianza as beneficiaries of the survivor's pension. Source
• Ley 1774 de 2016, art. 2 — amends art. 655 of the Código Civil and recognizes animals as sentient beings, the basis for the notion of “familia multiespecie”. Source
• Tribunal Superior de Bogotá, Sala Mixta, order of 6 October 2023 (M.P. Carlos Andrés Guzmán Díaz) — uses the notion of “familia multiespecie” in determining jurisdiction over visitation with a pet; the Corte Constitucional has had the matter under study since 2023.
• Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Civil — settled case law on the sociedad de hecho between compañeros or concubinos (reciprocal contributions, profit-seeking purpose and affectio societatis), which is distinct from the sociedad patrimonial under Ley 54 de 1990.
• Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Civil, SC2719 de 2022 — sociedad de hecho between compañeros; elements and proof (rad. 11001-31-03-020-2018-00266-01). Official text.