SC: Same-sex couples may co-own properties

The Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be treated as co-owners of property they acquire during their relationship, provided there is proof of actual financial contribution, clarifying for the first time how property rights apply to homosexual partners under the Family Code.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the Court’s Second Division held that Article 148 of the Family Code — which governs property relations of couples who cannot legally marry — applies to same-sex couples.

The provision recognizes co-ownership based on each partner’s actual contribution to the acquisition of property.

The ruling stemmed from a dispute between two women who had lived together as a couple and purchased a house and lot in Quezon City about a year into their relationship. They agreed to register the property under one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

When the couple separated, they initially agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner even signed an acknowledgment stating that the other had paid roughly half of the purchase and renovation costs.

She later refused to sell the property, however, and denied her former partner’s claim of co-ownership.

Seeking to protect her share, the claimant annotated an adverse claim on the property title and demanded partition.

When negotiations failed, she filed a case before the Regional Trial Court, presenting the signed acknowledgment as proof of her financial contribution.

The RTC dismissed the case for lack of proof and ordered her to pay damages. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal but removed the damages award. Both parties elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Reversing the lower courts, the SC ruled that the signed acknowledgment constituted a binding admission and sufficient evidence that the claimant had contributed to the property’s purchase and renovation.

This established co-ownership under Article 148.

The Court clarified that Article 147 of the Family Code covers unmarried couples who could legally marry, presuming joint ownership of properties acquired during cohabitation.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples barred from marrying, limiting common ownership to properties obtained through actual contributions.

Because Philippine law currently recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman, the Court said same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

Still, the SC emphasized that broader legal protections for same-sex couples must come from Congress, not the judiciary alone.

“[T]his Court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” the decision read, stressing that legislative action is needed to address the political, moral, and cultural questions surrounding same-sex unions.

In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen said Article 148 does not distinguish based on gender and should apply to all forms of cohabitation.

He warned that excluding same-sex couples would render “legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships.”

Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier echoed the view, saying the law is broad enough to cover same-sex partnerships and should not be confined to heterosexual couples, especially given evolving social values.

Legal observers say the ruling provides a clearer legal footing for same-sex partners seeking to protect shared assets, even as marriage equality remains unrecognized in the country.