In a recent and closely watched ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property—so long as there is proof of actual contribution.
Photo: Raphael Renter/Unsplash
The decision came from the Court’s Second Division, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, and involved two women who had been in a relationship and purchased a house and lot in Quezon City about a year into their partnership. Although the property was registered under a single name, both parties reportedly contributed to its purchase and renovation.
When the couple later separated, they initially agreed to sell the property and split the proceeds equally. One partner even signed an acknowledgment confirming that the other paid 50% of the total costs. However, the sale did not proceed, and the partner who held the title eventually denied her former partner’s claim to co-ownership.
This led to a legal dispute. The regional trial court dismissed the case, and the Court of Appeals upheld that decision. Both parties then brought the matter to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower courts’ rulings.
What the Supreme Court said
The Court explained that two provisions of the Family Code apply to couples living together:
-
Article 147 covers unmarried heterosexual couples who are legally allowed to marry. In these cases, property acquired during cohabitation is presumed to be jointly owned.
-
Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Under this rule, only properties acquired through actual contribution are considered common property, and ownership is based on the proportion of each person’s contribution.
Since same-sex couples are not legally allowed to marry in the Philippines, the Court ruled that Article 148 applies to them—and that it does not distinguish based on gender.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen emphasized this point in his separate opinion:
“To be different is not to be abnormal. A same-sex relationship is a normal relationship and therefore should be covered by Article 148 of the Family Code. Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate relationships.”
He added that the law should be interpreted in a way that reflects real lived experiences and protects people who may not fall squarely within existing legal frameworks.
Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier also supported this view, saying there is no reason why the protection of Article 148 should not extend to LGBTQIA+ couples, especially given changing social values and the unequal treatment between heterosexual and non-heterosexual partners.
What this means
This ruling does not legalize same-sex marriage, but it does recognize that same-sex couples can have legitimate property rights, especially when both partners can prove they contributed financially or otherwise to the acquisition of property.
The Supreme Court also acknowledged that broader questions about the rights of same-sex couples cannot be resolved by the courts alone.
“With the political, moral, and cultural questions that surround the issue… political departments, especially the Congress, must be involved,” the Court said, noting that legislation is necessary to address these concerns more fully.
ALSO READ: Is Buying Property in Metro Manila Worth It? Here’s What I Learned
What are your thoughts on this? Let us know in the comments.
Do you have a story for the WhenInManila.com Team? Email us at wheninmanila@gmail.com or send us a direct message at WhenInManila.com’s Facebook Page. Interact with the team and join the WhenInManila.com community at WIM Squad, and join our Viber group to stay updated with the latest around the Philippines and beyond!
