Same-sex partners gain property rights in Supreme Court ruling

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

MANILA — The Supreme Court’s Second Division recently ruled that same-sex partners may be considered co-owners of property, even without the benefit of a legal marriage, if it can be properly established through evidence.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, promulgated on Feb. 5, 2025, and uploaded on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, the high court division granted the petition filed by Jennifer C. Josef, reversing the Aug. 11, 2022 decision and the May 24, 2023 resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The case stemmed from a complaint for partition with damages filed by Josef against her former partner, Evalyn G. Ursua, involving a house and lot located in Quezon City.

The property was registered solely in Ursua’s name, but Josef claimed co-ownership based on her financial contributions to its acquisition and renovation, which were acknowledged in a document signed by Ursua in 2007.

In granting the petition, the court held that Josef is a co-owner of the property and is entitled to 50 percent ownership, citing the Acknowledgment of Third-Party Interest in Real Property executed by Ursua.

“The sole evidence that petitioner presented to establish the existence of co-ownership is the Acknowledgment executed and signed by respondent,” the decision stated, adding that the document sufficiently established Josef’s interest in the property.

The court noted that Ursua admitted signing the acknowledgment, citing the doctrine of contra proferentem, or the principle that any ambiguity in the provisions of a contract must be construed against the party who caused it.

“Simply stated, the 50 percent share of the subject property is the minimum share that [Ursua] wanted to acknowledge as [Josef’s] share,” the ruling said.

The decision emphasized that the case falls under Article 148 of the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, series of 1987), which governs the property relations of parties who cohabit but are not legally capacitated to marry, including same-sex couples.

“[T]he term ‘capacitated to marry each other’ under Article 147 of the Family Code pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage,” the ruling said.

“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,” it added.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, in his concurring opinion, said Philippine laws should be read “from more contemporary lenses” and should consider “the lived realities of many couples in the Philippines.”

Leonen stressed that Article 148 applies to same-sex couples because they are legally incapacitated to marry under current law.

“Article 148 of the Family Code governs the property relations of parties who are legally incapacitated to marry. Given that our current laws on marriage do not capacitate same-sex couples to marry, they too are considered incapacitated to marry,” Leonen wrote.

He added that recognizing co-ownership under Article 148 protects rights without equating same-sex relationships to marriage, noting that such recognition remains within the bounds of existing law.

“To be different is not to be abnormal. A same-sex relationship is a normal relationship and therefore should be covered by Article 148 of the Family Code. Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships,” he said.

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, in a separate concurrence, agreed that Josef’s ownership of half of the property had been established and that her complaint for partition should be granted.

Lazaro-Javier underscored that Ursua’s repeated acknowledgment of Josef’s contributions, including statements that Josef had contributed about half of the expenses, was sufficient to establish co-ownership.

“Had Ursua truly intended for Josef to only be able to claim her actual share in the property, she would not have set her presumed share as high as 50 percent,” Lazaro-Javier stated in her opinion.

The high court remanded the case to the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 87 for further proceedings on the partition of the property.