10/02/2026
Giklaro sa Supreme Court ang kalainan sa duha ka balaod:
Article 147: Alang sa mga pares nga pwede magpakasal; giisip nga awtomatikong manag-iya sila sa ilang mapalit.
Article 148: Alang sa mga dili pwede magpakasal (lakip ang same-sex couples); ang pagpanag-iya kinahanglan gayud pamatud-an pinaagi sa aktwal nga kontribusyon.
Tungod kay ang kaminyoon sa Pilipinas alang ra sa lalaki ug babaye, ang same-sex couples ubos gayud sa Article 148. Sa maong kaso, ang Acknowledgment maoy nahimong lig-ong ebidensya sa iyang amot. Busa, gimando sa SC ang pagbahin sa kabtangan. Kini nga desisyon naghatag og proteksyon sa pinansyal nga interes sa mga same-sex couples, bisan kon wala pa giila sa balaod ang ilang panaghiusa isip kaminyoon.
[AI Translated on 2/10/2026]
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/.
