10/02/2026
๐๐จ-๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐ฆ๐-๐๐๐ฑ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ๐ฌ ๐ณ๏ธโ๐
In Jennifer C. Josef v. Evalyn G. Ursua (G.R. No. 267469, 5 Feb 2025), the Supreme Court explained that โcapacitated to marry each otherโ in Article 147 refers to the legal capacity to contract marriage. Since the Family Code defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, same-sex partners who live together as a couple are not capacitated to marry each other, and their property relations are governed by Article 148.
Under Article 148 of the Family Code:
1๏ธโฃ Only properties acquired during the cohabitation and
2๏ธโฃ Proven to have been acquired through the partiesโ actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry
๐ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ.
Contributions and corresponding shares are prima facie presumed equal, but only if there is proof of actual contribution.
๐ ๐๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐จ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐ง๐จ ๐๐จ-๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ง๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐๐โ๐๐ ๐ฌ๐ก๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ.
Read the full text here:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/GR-267469-1-14.pdf
The (SC) has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the ๐๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐บ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ, provided there is proof of actual contribution.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SCโs Second Division granted a womanโs complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.
Article 148 of the ๐๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐บ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ governs the property relations of couples who are living together but cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.
The two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they purchased a house and lot, and agreed to register the property in one partnerโs name to facilitate banking transactions.
Upon separation, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. One partner signed an ๐๐ค๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต 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 for partition of real estate and damages, relying on the ๐๐ค๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต as proof of co-ownership.
The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the ๐๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐บ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ governing the property relations of unmarried couples living together.
Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.
Article 148, on the other hand, applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.
Since the ๐๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐บ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ only allows marriage between a man and a woman, the SC held that same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.
Here, the SC found that the signed ๐๐ค๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต, 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.
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160462.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160431.
Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160444.
Read the Concurrence of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=160439.
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.
