Dear Atty. Nico,

I am a gay man. I was in relationship with another gay man for five years.

Within that period, we were able to purchase a house and lot in Providence Village, Marikina as well as a sports utility vehicle (SUV). Before we broke up, I was able to make him sign a “kasulatan” which recognizes my right as a co-owner to both properties. Furthermore, it stated that I paid 50 percent of the expenses in the acquisition of the said properties.

However, when I tried to claim my share, he vehemently denied signing anything and dismissed the same.

I strongly believe that I have a right to the aforementioned properties due to the presence of his signature in the said “kasulatan.”

My question is: What would be my legal basis? Thank you for your time and God bless.

Marcus

❏ ❏ ❏

Dear Marcus,

In a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court, it opined that Article 148 of the Family Code (FC) governs such property relations.

In Josef v. Ursua, the Court held that while there are two provisions on the matter of void marriages (Articles 147 and 148 FC), the former applies only when a MAN and a WOMAN, suffering NO ILLEGAL IMPEDIMENT to marry each other, exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage. Under the said provision, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership.

On the other hand, the latter becomes the basis when the common law spouses suffer from a legal impediment to marry or when they do not live exclusively with each other (as husband and wife), only the property acquired by BOTH of them through their ACTUAL JOINT contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned in common and in proportion to their respective contributions. Such contributions and corresponding shares, however, are prima facie presumed to be EQUAL.

However, for this presumption to arise, PROOF OF ACTUAL CONTRIBUTION IS REQUIRED. Thus, if the actual contribution of a party is not proven, there will be no co-ownership and there can be no presumption of equal shares.

Furthermore, in arriving at the conclusion that Article 148 FC applies in the said case, the Court defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Considering that the parties in the case have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other; thus, Article 148 governs their property relations.

Applying the same in your circumstance, Article 148 FC shall be your legal basis in making a claim to the house and lot as well as the SUV, with the “kasulatan” as your proof of actual contribution in both properties plus any receipts and bank records, if available.

Atty. Nico Antonio