The Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the Family Code, provided there is proof of actual contribution to the acquisition of the property.
In a decision issued by the Court’s Second Division, the high tribunal granted a woman’s complaint for the partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her former same-sex partner. The ruling clarified that Article 148, which governs property relations of couples who live together without a valid marriage, applies regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners involved.
The Court explained that Article 148 covers situations where parties cohabit without the benefit of marriage or under circumstances that render their union void. Under this provision, properties acquired through the actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are governed by the rules on co-ownership. Each party is entitled to a share proportional to their respective contributions.
In resolving the case, the Court emphasized that co-ownership does not arise automatically from cohabitation alone. Claimants must present sufficient evidence demonstrating their actual participation in the acquisition, improvement, or preservation of the property. Such contributions may include direct financial input, labor, or other forms of support that can be clearly established.
The ruling stemmed from a dispute between two women who lived together for several years and acquired a residential property during their relationship. After their separation, one partner sought judicial recognition of her rights over the property, alleging that she had contributed to its purchase and upkeep. The lower courts had dismissed the claim, but the Supreme Court reversed those rulings after finding that the evidence supported the existence of co-ownership.
The Court noted that denying same-sex partners access to remedies available under Article 148 would result in unequal treatment and would be inconsistent with the provision’s purpose of preventing unjust enrichment. It stressed that the law focuses on contributions and property relations, not on the gender or sexual orientation of the parties.
The decision was penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez. It was issued in G.R. No. 267469, titled Josef v. Ursua.
Legal observers said the ruling provides clearer guidance for courts handling property disputes involving same-sex partners, particularly in the absence of legislation specifically recognizing same-sex unions. While the decision does not equate to legal recognition of same-sex marriage, it affirms that existing civil law provisions on property and equity apply equally when the requirements of the law are met.
