Philippine Supreme Court Grants Property Rights to Same-Sex Cohabiting Partners
In a landmark decision that clarifies property rights for unmarried couples, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled that same-sex partners who live together under one roof may be legally recognized as co-owners of property, provided there is clear evidence of actual financial contribution to its acquisition. This significant ruling, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez of the Court's Second Division, marks a progressive step in acknowledging the property relations of same-sex couples within the existing legal framework.
Legal Basis in the Family Code
The Court's decision hinges on Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs the property relations of couples who cohabit but are legally barred from marrying. While Philippine law does not recognize same-sex marriage, the ruling clarifies that same-sex couples are not excluded from asserting property rights based on their actual contributions. The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 148 applies specifically to couples who cannot legally marry, distinguishing it from Article 147, which covers unmarried couples who have the legal capacity to marry and presumes joint ownership of property acquired during cohabitation.
Since the Family Code only permits marriage between a man and a woman, the Supreme Court held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under the provisions of Article 148, ensuring their property contributions are not overlooked. This interpretation provides a crucial legal pathway for same-sex partners to protect their investments in shared assets.
Case Background: A Quezon City Property Dispute
The ruling emerged from a specific case involving two women who lived together as a couple for approximately one year in Quezon City. During their relationship, they jointly purchased a house and lot, but for practical banking purposes, they agreed to register the property solely in one partner's name. After their separation, the estranged couple initially consented to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner even signed an acknowledgment stating that the other had contributed about 50 percent of the purchase and renovation costs.
However, the partner listed as the sole owner later refused to proceed with the sale and denied her former partner's co-ownership claim. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings that favored the sole owner, recognizing the other partner as a co-owner based on the signed acknowledgment, which served as binding proof of actual contribution.
Concurring Opinions Highlight Gender Inclusivity
In a Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen elaborated that Article 148 does not discriminate based on gender and should apply to all forms of cohabitation. He stressed that same-sex relationships are normal and legitimate intimate partnerships that must be covered by the law to avoid rendering them legally invisible. Similarly, Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurred, noting that Article 148 is broad enough to encompass same-sex cohabitation and should not be restricted to heterosexual relationships.
Given 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, Justice Lazaro-Javier argued for an inclusive interpretation that aligns with contemporary social norms. These opinions reinforce the Court's commitment to fairness and equality in property disputes involving same-sex couples.
This ruling sets a precedent for future cases, offering protection and recognition to same-sex couples who contribute financially to shared properties, even in the absence of legal marriage recognition in the Philippines.
