The Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines 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.

The case of the warring lovers

The decision stemmed from the case of two women, Josef and Evalyn G. Ursua, who used to live 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.

When they separated, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an Acknowledgment stating that the other had paid about 50% 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.

The SC reversed the lower courts. It clarified the provisions in the Family Code governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together – Article 147 and (the above-mentioned) Article 148.

Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry, where property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned; and Article 148 applies to couples who are not permitted to marry, where only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

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.

And in a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, 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 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.

Law on LGBTQIA+ relationships still needed

The SC revisited its admonishment of Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III who, in 2015, questioned the constitutionality of the provision of the Family Code of the Philippines defining marriage as “between a man and a woman”. The SC stated that the “petition did not present an actual case or controversy that would warrant this Court’s exercise of judicial review”, so it “cannot rule on the constitutionality of the provisions… without arrogating legislative power unto itself and violating the principle of separation of powers”.

Nonetheless, this time, 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:

“(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 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.”

Same-sex relationships are normal

In his concurring 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 emphasized that a same-sex relationship is a normal relationship which must be covered by Article 148. “Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships.”

Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro‑Javier, in her concurrence, added that Article 148 is broad enough to cover same-sex cohabitation and should not be limited to heterosexual relationships, “(g)iven the prevailing values in modern society as well as the glaring yet unjustified difference in the treatment of heterosexual couples vis-à-vis their homosexual counterparts.”

Limited ‘success’

Largely celebrated in the LGBTQIA+ community in the Philippines, LGBTQIA+ organization Bahaghari Center for SOGIE Research, Education and Advocacy, Inc. (Bahaghari Center) nonetheless stated that while “a win is a win, this ruling actually also highlights the urgent need to pass a law that will protect the human rights of LGBTQIA+ Filipinos, including those in LGBTQIA+ relationships,” said co-executive director Aaron Moises C. Bonete.

“These are non-issues for heterosexual people in relationships, since existing laws recognize them. And yet those in LGBTQIA+ relationships have to file cases just to also get what should also be rightfully theirs. The inherent bias is not loss on the SC, but is continuously ignored by Congress by refusing to come up with a law that guarantees that LGBTQIA+ Filipinos, including their relationships, get the same legal treatment as everybody else,” Bonete said. And so “yes, we treat this as a win, albeit a small one. But it’s also a call for us to push, and push harder to pass a law that will legally recognize us and our relationships.”

And for the Rainbow Rights Philippines, “while the ruling is a nod toward inclusivity, we highlight a major concern: Article 148 is reserved for ‘void’ unions and requires strict proof of ‘actual contribution’ to claim shared property.”

As such, while the organization welcomed the so-called progress, “we raise the question of the inferior protection provided by the classification. We continue our call on the government to uphold equality and recognize that our love is valid.”