Metro Manila, Philippines – The Supreme Court ruled that property co-ownership of living-in same-sex couples may be recognized under the Family Code.
The SC noted that the partners must provide proof of actual contribution in the acquired property in line with Article 148 of the code, which governs the property relations of couples living together but cannot legally marry, granting co-ownership based on actual contributions.
Its preceding article applies to property relations of unmarried couples who may legally marry.
The Philippines, a predominant Roman Catholic nation, does not recognize same-sex unions as the Family Code defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
“Considering that petitioner and respondent have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other, and thus, Article 148 governs their property relations,” read the ruling penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.
The court decision was publicized on Tuesday, Feb. 10. The high court’s second division promulgated it more than a year had passed, or on Feb. 5, 2025.
The ruling stemmed from the case of a former partner’s complaint for partition of property, seeking to be recognized as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.
The magistrates said the petitioner essentially sought protection for property rights under the Family Code for same-sex couples.
Lopez said the court “does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples.”
“With the political, moral, and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments especially the Congress must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms,” he wrote.
“The process of legislation exposes the experiences of homosexuals who have been oppressed, ensuring that they are understood by those who stand with the majority,” he said, adding that public reason must be first shaped through campaigns and advocacies before sharpened for judicial fiat.
Same-sex cohabitation
In his concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen, who chairs the second division, said Article 147 mentions gender-specific parties but Article 148 does not.
“From the plain text of the law, it is clear that Article 148 refers to any kind of cohabitation other than those falling under Article 147,” Leonen said.
“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,” he said. “Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships.”
In a similar opinion, Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier said granting the same rights accorded to heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships “falls outside judicial might for now sans the necessary legislation.”
Lazaro-Javier shared the view that Article 148 must be applied to same-sex couples.
“Given the prevailing values in modern society as well as the glaring yet unjustified difference in the treatment of heterosexual couples vis-à-vis their homosexual counterparts, I do not see any reason why the protection of Article 148 of the Family Code should not be extended to members of the LGBTQI+ community,” she said.
The case centered on two women who were a couple in 2005.
A year into their relationship, they bought a house and lot in Quezon City, which was registered in one partner’s name for banking transactions.
When they separated, they decided to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. The former partner signed an acknowledgment which stated that the petitioner had paid about half of the purchase and renovation costs.
The dispute arose when the former partner later refused to sell the property and denied that the petitioner was a co-owner.
The court granted the petition, supported the signed acknowledgement as proof of contribution, and reversed earlier decisions of lower courts that dismissed the case for lack of proof of contribution.
