1 hour ago
1
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
February 10, 2026 | 1:21pm
MANILA, Philippines — Same-sex couples living together can be considered co-owners of property acquired during their relationship, provided there is clear evidence of actual contribution, the Supreme Court said.
The ruling promulgated on February 5, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, explained that while same-sex marriage is not yet legally recognized in the Philippines, the property relations of such couples are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code.
The case
The case stemmed from two women who lived together as a couple. During their relationship, they purchased a house and lot in Quezon City, registering it under only one partner's name for banking convenience.
Upon their separation, they initially agreed to sell the property and split the proceeds. One partner even signed an "acknowledgment" admitting that the other had paid for roughly 50% of the purchase and renovation costs.
However, she later reneged on the deal, denying her former partner's co-ownership and refusing to sell.
The former partner attempted to secure her rights by annotating an adverse claim and seeking a partition of the property. She filed a case before a Regional Trial Court (RTC) based on the acknowledgment.
Though the RTC dismissed her suit and ordered her to pay damages for lack of proof, the Court of Appeals—while affirming the dismissal—reversed the ruling on damages. This prompted the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, clarifying that property relations between same-sex couples are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code rather than Article 147.
Article 147 applies to couples who are legally eligible to marry and presumes joint ownership of property acquired during cohabitation, the high court explained. Article 148, meanwhile, applies to those prohibited from marriage, requiring proof of actual contribution for a property to be considered common.
Because the Family Code limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman, the high court held that same-sex partners necessarily fall under Article 148.
“The Family Code defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.’ Considering that petitioner and respondent have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other, and thus, Article 148 governs their property relations,” the high court’s ruling read.
In this specific instance, however, the Supreme Court found that the signed acknowledgment—in which one partner admitted the other had paid approximately half of the property's costs—constituted a binding admission and sufficient evidence of actual contribution, thereby establishing a valid co-ownership.
“Having admitted the actual contribution of petitioner, their corresponding shares are prima facie presumed equal. Thus, with Article 148 of the Family Code and the Acknowledgement executed by respondent, petitioner is a co-owner to the extent of 50% share of the subject property,” the high court’s ruling read.
“Considering that there is co-ownership between petitioner and respondent, then each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as her share is concerned. Having rightful interest over the subject property, petitioner has the right to demand the division of the subject property,” it added.
What does Article 148 say? This provision of the Family Code falls under the property regimes of unions without the benefit of marriage:
“Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.”
