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, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, and made public Feb. 10, the SC’s 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. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot in Quezon City. They agreed to register the property in one partner’s name to facilitate banking transactions.
Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an acknowledgment stating that the other had paid about 50 percent 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 title and demanded partition of the property. 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 even ordered her to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC but reversed the award of damages.
Both parties appealed to the SC, which later clarified the provisions in the Family Code governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.
Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned. Article 148 applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property, the SC Office of the Spokesperson said.
Since the Family Code only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.
Here, the SC found that the signed Acknowledgement, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership.
The SC emphasized that, without 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. ||
