MANILA — The Supreme Court has affirmed that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property they acquired during their relationship, provided there is clear proof of actual financial contribution, in a ruling that clarifies how existing property laws apply to same-sex partnerships.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the Court’s Second Division granted a former partner’s plea to partition a house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner, reversing lower court rulings that had rejected her claim of co-ownership.
The Court found that the couple purchased a residential property in Quezon City about a year into their relationship and agreed to register it under only one partner’s name for banking convenience. After their separation, both initially agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally.
However, one partner later refused to proceed with the sale and denied the other’s ownership claim, despite having executed a written acknowledgment stating that her former partner had paid nearly half of the purchase price and renovation costs.
The aggrieved partner subsequently annotated an adverse claim on the property title and filed a case seeking judicial partition.
Trial courts dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient proof of contribution, while the Court of Appeals removed an earlier award of damages but sustained the dismissal. Both parties elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
In overturning the lower courts, the high tribunal clarified that property relations of unmarried couples are governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.
Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who are legally capable of marrying and presumes joint ownership of properties acquired during cohabitation. Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who cannot legally marry and limits co-ownership to properties acquired through actual contribution.
Since Philippine law recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman, the Court held that same-sex couples fall under Article 148. It ruled that the signed acknowledgment admitting partial payment constituted a binding admission and sufficient evidence of contribution, thereby establishing co-ownership.
At the same time, the Supreme Court stressed the limits of judicial authority in addressing the broader rights of same-sex couples in the absence of enabling legislation.
“[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 Court said.
“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 separate concurring opinions, several justices said Article 148 should be interpreted broadly to include same-sex relationships. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen wrote that the provision does not distinguish based on gender and applies to all forms of cohabitation, cautioning that excluding same-sex couples would render legitimate relationships legally invisible.
Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier echoed this view, saying Article 148 is expansive enough to cover same-sex cohabitation and should not be confined to heterosexual partnerships, citing evolving social values and what she described as an unjustified disparity in the treatment of homosexual couples./PN
