
MANILA – The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing co-ownership of property in same-sex cohabiting relationships, provided there is proof of contribution.
“This SC decision affirms that diverse forms of intimate relationships exist and cannot be rendered legally invisible,” the CHR said in a statement.
By acknowledging that same-sex partners may be considered co-owners under Article 148 of the Family Code, the Court “moves away from treating same-sex partners as legal strangers,” the CHR added, noting that the ruling strengthens visibility and legal protection for LGBTQIA relationships.
“The decision aligns with constitutional guarantees of equal protection and the Philippines’ obligations under international human rights law,” the CHR said. “Recognizing property relations affirms the dignity, agency, and family life of LGBTQIA individuals and upholds the State’s duty to prevent discrimination, regardless of SOGIE.”
The CHR called for sustained legislative and policy action to close remaining protection gaps, stressing that “moving from visibility to full equality requires comprehensive reform grounded in the Constitution’s promise of equal protection of the laws.”
In its decision, the SC ruled that property acquired during same-sex cohabitation is presumed jointly owned under Article 148, but only properties obtained through actual contribution qualify as common property. The Court cited a signed acknowledgment in which one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs as sufficient proof to establish co-ownership.
The Court emphasized that, in the absence of a law recognizing same-sex marriage, Congress and other government branches must address same-sex couples’ rights, as courts alone cannot resolve all related policy concerns.
“This Court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” the SC said, urging political departments, especially Congress, to seek solutions that balance interests while upholding fundamental freedoms.





Leave a Reply