The ruling opens the door to new criteria, but too raises questions about how the relationship will be proven and the financial impact on the system.
Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice has broadened access to pensions for unmarried couples, ruling on February 10, 2026, that a five-year cohabitation requirement for concubines seeking benefits from the ISSSTE social security institute is unconstitutional. The decision marks a shift in how the country recognizes family structures and could have significant implications for social security claims.
The court determined that the previous rule, in place since 2007, violated rights to equality and family life. The ruling stems from a case involving a widower whose request for a pension was denied because he and his deceased partner hadn’t lived together for the required five years.
What Did the Court Decide?
The Pleno declared unconstitutional the requirement of a minimum of five years of cohabitation or the existence of children to access a pension for concubinage through the ISSSTE.
The presiding minister considered the requirement “irrational” because familial and emotional bonds don’t necessarily form after a fixed period. The court concluded that imposing a time limit infringes on the right to equality and discriminates against couples who choose not to marry.
The resolution invalidates a mandatory criterion previously supported by jurisprudence between 2008 and 2015.
What Does This Mean for Proving Concubinage?
The Court eliminated the five-year requirement, but did not establish a new minimum timeframe for proving a concubinage relationship.
The presiding minister emphasized that defining such a timeframe is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch. For now, the ruling allows each case to be analyzed based on evidence of the relationship, while Congress defines a new legal framework.
Current standards vary across Mexican states, including three years in Jalisco, Querétaro, Durango and Chiapas; two years in Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Tamaulipas and Mexico City; and one year in Estado de México and Tabasco.
Why Was the Requirement Deemed Unconstitutional?
The majority of the Pleno argued that family models have changed and that the law must recognize new forms of union.
The presiding minister noted that requiring five years to access a pension infringes on the right to free personality development and the protection of the family.
Minister Loretta Ortiz affirmed that the traditional family model has evolved and that the Court must respond to that reality.
Minister Arístides Guerrero García supported the change with data from INEGI showing a decrease in marriages, noting that concubinage is becoming more common.
What Concerns Were Raised?
A minority of justices expressed concern about the potential financial impact on the ISSSTE.
One justice warned that eliminating the five-year requirement could create a budgetary risk for the pension system, potentially allowing more people to claim benefits without an objective time-based criterion.
Concerns were also raised that a potential increase in beneficiaries could make it more difficult to forecast future pension liabilities.
How Did the Case Reach the Court?
The case originated with a pension request from a widower who had been in a concubinage relationship with an ISSSTE pensioner since 2019. She passed away in 2022.
In 2023, a family judge recognized the existence of the concubinage. However, in January 2024, the ISSSTE denied the pension because the five-year requirement hadn’t been met.
The affected individual obtained an injunction in November 2024, and the case was taken up by the Pleno of the Court in 2025, leading to the change in criteria.
What Changes for Unmarried Couples Seeking Pensions?
The ruling eliminates the automatic five-year requirement or the need to have children in common. However, it doesn’t mean a pension will be granted immediately without proof.
Individuals applying for the pension will need to prove the concubinage relationship through other means, while Congress defines a new legal framework.
For those in concubinage relationships affiliated with the ISSSTE, the resolution may open the possibility of claiming social security rights previously limited by the time requirement.
What Remains to Be Defined?
The main outstanding issue is for the Legislative Branch to establish a new legal framework defining how concubinage will be proven for pension purposes.
The debate also remains open regarding the financial impact on the ISSSTE and the need to balance the recognition of new family models with the viability of the pension system.
The resolution marks a significant shift in criteria regarding social security and family law, but its concrete application will depend on the legal reforms enacted in the coming months or years.
