The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property, as long as there is proof that both partners actually contributed to its purchase or improvement.

The High Court ruling reversed the decision of the lower courts that upheld the full ownership of a partner who claimed full ownership of a property that she and her partner put up in Quezon City.

The ruling is based on Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs the property relations of couples who live together but are not legally allowed to marry. Under this provision, property is considered jointly owned only to the extent of each partner’s actual contribution.

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

Facts of the Case

The two women lived together as a couple. About a year into their relationship, they bought a house and lot in Quezon City.

To make bank transactions easier, they agreed to register the property under only one partner’s name.

When the couple later separated, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner even signed a written Acknowledgment stating that the other had paid about 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.

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

To protect her rights, the former partner placed an adverse claim on the property title and demanded that the property be divided. When this failed, she filed a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), using the signed Acknowledgment as proof of her contribution.

Lower Courts’ Rulings

The RTC dismissed the case, saying there was not enough proof of contribution, and even ordered the former partner to pay damages. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal but removed the damages award. Both sides then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Ruling

The SC reversed the lower courts and clarified how the Family Code applies to unmarried couples who live together.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who are legally allowed to marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.
Article 148 applies to couples who cannot legally marry. Only property acquired through actual contribution is considered jointly owned.
Since Philippine law allows marriage only between a man and a woman, the SC ruled that same-sex couples fall under Article 148.

In this case, the SC held that the signed Acknowledgment—where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the costs—was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership of the property.

The Court also emphasized that, in the absence of a law recognizing same-sex marriage, broader issues affecting same-sex couples must be addressed by Congress and other government branches, not by the courts alone.

In a separate opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen explained that Article 148 does not distinguish based on gender and applies to all forms of cohabitation. He stressed that same-sex relationships are normal and must not be excluded, warning that doing so would make such relationships “legally invisible.”

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier likewise stated that Article 148 is broad enough to cover same-sex couples and should not be limited to heterosexual relationships, especially in light of modern societal values and the unequal treatment of homosexual couples.