MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) 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.

Article 148 governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, recognizing co-ownership based only on their actual contributions.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC Second Division granted a former partner’s complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.

The two women lived together as a couple and, a year into their relationship, purchased a house and lot in Quezon City. They agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.

After their separation, the former partners agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an Acknowledgment stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, she later refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner was a co-owner.

To protect her interest, the former partner annotated an adverse claim on the property title and demanded partition. When this failed, she filed a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), relying on the Acknowledgment as proof of co-ownership.

The RTC dismissed the case for lack of proof of contribution and ordered her to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but reversed the award of damages. Both parties elevated the case to the SC.

The SC reversed the rulings of the lower courts and clarified the Family Code provisions governing property relations of unmarried couples.

It explained that Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry, where property acquired during cohabitation is presumed jointly owned. Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry, where only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

Since the Family Code allows marriage only between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.

In this case, the Court found that the signed Acknowledgment, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, constituted a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution, thereby establishing co-ownership.

The SC also stressed that the recognition of rights of same-sex couples cannot rest on the courts alone in the absence of a law recognizing same-sex marriage, stating:

“[T]his 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. 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. Mostly, public reason needs to be first shaped through the crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat.”

In a Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen said Article 148 does not distinguish based on gender and applies to all forms of cohabitation. He emphasized that a same-sex relationship is a normal relationship that must be covered by Article 148, warning that “[o]therwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships.”

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, in her separate Concurrence, also said Article 148 is broad enough to cover same-sex cohabitation and should not be limited to heterosexual relationships, “[g]iven 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.”