I know many sisters in the Philippines where there husband abused them and finally left them. They want to move forward with their lives, but divorce is not permitted there. Does anyone know how the church handles this situation. Are these women unable to progress without leaving the church?

You are not describing the same thing as the term "common law marriage" describes in common law countries (countries where the law is based on the Anglo-Saxon "common law).

Common law marriage is when a couple live together as man and wife but without going through the formalities of getting a legal marriage license and official ceremony. Some states in the U.S. recognized such relationships, after a certain passage of time, as equivalent to a legal marriage.

My understanding is that such relationships, common in many (usually "third world") cultures, are not sanctioned by the church, and investigators in such relationships who want to join the church are told that they must either marry their partner or leave the relationship before they can be baptized.

But that was not your question (to which I don't know the official answer).

Does the church just disfellowship or excom people in this situation?

When I was in Brazil, (1960s) couples living together as if married, but who were not allowed to divorce a previous marriage, had to be interviewed by MP before baptism. If they convinced the MP that they were in a stable quasi-marriage, they could be baptized. I never knew the MP to decline a potential convert couple.

When it came to increasing the numbers of baptisms/members, LDS Inc had no problem redefining marriage to their own benefit.

Same applied in the 80s in Brazil.

From "On This Day in Mormon History:"

Mar 19, 1897 - First Presidency letter: "Where couples living
together as man and wife have observed the requirement of their
people, tribe or nation, their union should be respected by our
brethren" even if it is not a legally performed marriage. Since
the 1950's church policy has reversed that Presidency's ruling
in two ways: first by sanctioning and performing temple
sealings for long-term relationships of Latin American couples
who are living without legal marriage (due to restrictions on
divorce) even though these relationships are defined as
adulterous by laws of their nation; second by refusing to
"respect" the legitimacy of black African polygamous marriages
which are legal by the laws of their tribe and nation.

Thanks, Baura! I could just squeeze you sometimes. (Don't get a fat head out of this, but you've been a hero of mine since 2007.) This is a great piece of work that we can dangle in front of people when the occasion arises.

Do you do birthdays and weddings? I need to know.

Can a couple in a common law marriage still be sealed in the temple..?

Yes. See baura's post above.

When I was a missionary in the Philippines back in the late 1980s, the Church's policy was that people who were married, separated, and living with new partners could be baptized if they could verify that the marriage relationship was in fact ended (no chance of going back to old spouse). We baptized a couple in that situation. In some cases, the couple was required to have an attorney prepare an affidavit that acted like a marriage contract. And although Richard Packham is correct that these relationships are not actually common law marriages, I think I remember the term being used regularly - probably due to the close ties between the Philippines and the USA.

My wife's family had a district president who was "remarried" in this way, but he apparently didn't observe the part about staying away from the previous wife. This didn't cause him any problems with the Church leaders, and in fact, when a member tried to point it out, he was disciplined by the Church.