SMALL steps, indeed, as long as it is in the same direction. The Supreme Court has decided that same-sex partners can now co-own property as long as there are direct contributions from each, as shown by official receipts.
The Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of properties they acquired together.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Joseph Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division granted a complaint of a former partner for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.
The Court, in a ruling made public last Tuesday, said Article 147 of the Family Code applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry and that property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned. The law, however, limits marriage to a man and a woman; therefore, the Supreme Court said that same-sex couples “necessarily fall under Article 148.” Article 148 of the Family Code “governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.”
Ladlad, the national organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Filipinos which I founded in 2013, has released a statement on the matter.
Ladlad welcomes the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. This decision, which overturned the erroneous rulings of both a regional trial court and the Court of Appeals, is a significant step forward in the protection of LGBTQ+ rights and equality under the law.
By recognizing the reality of shared lives, shared labor and shared investments of same-sex couples, the Supreme Court has affirmed a fundamental principle: Sexual orientation and gender identity or expression do not diminish one’s right to fairness, dignity and justice. This ruling acknowledges that love, partnership and contribution are not exclusive to heterosexual relationships.
We recognize this decision as landmark jurisprudence, one that challenges long-standing discrimination embedded in legal and social institutions. It sets an important precedent for how courts should treat same-sex relationships, especially in matters of property, economic security and shared responsibility.
However, while this ruling is a welcome victory, it also underscores the urgent need to fully and explicitly protect LGBTQ+ Filipinos through comprehensive legislation. It is time to advance serious, inclusive and informed discussions on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics, and to finally pass a law that guarantees protection against discrimination in all areas of life.
Justice should not depend on costly litigation or exceptional circumstances. Equality must be clear, accessible and guaranteed. Ladlad remains committed to advocating for a society where LGBTQ+ people are fully recognized, not only in jurisprudence but in everyday life.
The ruling stems from a property dispute between two women who lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they bought a house and lot in Quezon City. As the case with most same-sex relationships, they agreed to register the property in one partner’s name for convenience in banking transactions. After the relationship ended, the partners initially agreed to sell the home and split the proceeds, but eventually, a co-ownership dispute surfaced.
The signed acknowledgement, in which one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, constituted a binding admission, sufficient proof of actual contribution and established co-ownership.
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. This 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,” said the Supreme Court.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen said Article 148 applies to all forms of cohabitation and is not based on gender, emphasizing that a same-sex relationship is a normal relationship that must be covered by the article. “Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships,” he added.
My friend, lawyer Virginia Viray, gave an in-depth analysis of this landmark decision. She said:
“One of the challenges to same-sex couples in the Philippines, given the absence of marriage equality in our current laws, is the lack of legal protection on property relations. Heterosexual couples who live together as common-law spouses enjoy the presumption that properties acquired while they lived together have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares; and a partner shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if their effort consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household (Section 147, Family Code).
“So, is this case really a win for the LGBTQs? In a way, yes. Because it acknowledges cohabiting same-sex couples. Jurisprudence acknowledging that same-sex couples fall under Section 148 of the Family Code — a law that governs Family, is a win. They are not ‘roommates,’ not ‘business’ partners. From legally invisible, to being visible. Cohabiting same-sex couples exist!
“What good is it, then? As in the case of Josef v. Ursua, partners may protect themselves by legal means such as acknowledging each other’s contribution to the acquisition of properties — ideally, at the point when partners are still on good terms, to ensure fairness upon separation. Partners may execute wills, to protect their surviving partner from relatives who have no respect for their relationship (or may acknowledge it, but just want the properties anyway).
“There are also certain rights and protections, such as the right to SSS/GSIS survivors’ pension, that no legal acrobatics can remedy. There must be a change in law. Josef v. Ursua is a small step forward; but the journey to true visibility and equality has a long way to go.”
The Philippine LGBT Chamber of Commerce also welcomes the Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex partners to claim ownership of property when they can show proof of contribution.
“This decision reflects the real lives of LGBTQ+ Filipinos who have long built shared homes, assets and businesses, often without clear legal protection. There is still work ahead, but this ruling shows how far we’ve already come. It gives LGBTQ+ couples greater security and supports a more inclusive business environment.
“As we build on this progress, we continue to call for the passage of the Equality bill; the creation of an LGBTQIA+ Enterprise Fund; incentives for micro, small and medium queer enterprises; free access to state-led capacity programs; LGBTQ+ representation in public-private business councils; and legal recognition of the right to care.
“Together, these steps help move us toward a fairer, more inclusive economy where the nation truly is the Philippines for all.”
