Civil and Commercial Judge Vivian López stated that the community of property regime represents one of the most important advances introduced by Law No. 1/92, offering greater asset protection and legal security within marriage, especially for women who dedicate part of their lives to raising children and maintaining the household.
During an interview, the magistrate explained that under this regime, everything acquired during the duration of the marriage becomes part of the couple's joint estate, thereby avoiding future disputes over ownership of assets. "Often one of the partners does not fully develop their professional career or generate income because they dedicate time to child-rearing. This regime recognizes that contribution and ensures an equitable distribution of assets," she said.
López considered the shared regime to be especially favorable for couples made up of workers and professionals who plan to start a family. For her, the non-economic contribution made within the home should hold the same value as the income generated by either spouse.
The magistrate noted, however, that there are situations in which the separation of property regime may be a suitable alternative, such as in the case of individuals with significant inherited assets or those engaged in business and commercial activities exposed to financial risks. According to her, this mechanism is often used to prevent potential debts, bankruptcies, or creditor claims from affecting the couple's assets. "In the case of merchants or business owners, it can be a useful asset protection tool," she noted.
López also highlighted practical differences between the two regimes. Under the shared regime, certain financial transactions require the consent of both spouses, whereas with separate estates, each party can independently assume obligations or acquire assets. At the same time, she warned that a lack of financial transparency within a relationship can lead to future conflicts, especially in inheritance or separation proceedings, and that asset management is directly tied to trust between the parties.
The judge also recommended that couples formalize their unions through marriage rather than opting solely for cohabitation. Although she acknowledged that Paraguayan legislation has made progress in recognizing rights for cohabiting couples, she maintained that legal difficulties may still arise in the event of death or separation. "Often, subsequent recognition of the union involves more complex and costly procedures than formalizing it from the start," she said.
Finally, López stressed the importance of couples analyzing in advance which property regime best suits their personal, family, and economic circumstances before entering into marriage.