Same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of properties, the Supreme Court ruled.
The decision stemmed from the legal battle between two women who were previously in a relationship and were living together as a couple.
A year into their relationship, the couple acquired a house and lot. To process the purchase through the bank, the couple agreed to register the property under the name of one partner.
When the couple separated, they initially agreed to sell the property and split the proceeds equally. An acknowledgement was signed by one partner, stating that the other paid 50% of the property’s purchase and renovation costs.
However, she later refused to sell the property and denied her ex-partner as a co-owner.
A case was then filed at a regional trial court (RTC) and later on the Court of Appeals (CA), with both dismissing the claims. It was further appealed to the SC.
In a 14-page decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC reversed the ruling of the lower courts. The decision granted the former partner partition of the property, recognizing her as a co-owner.
The SC cited the provisions of the Family Code, specifically Article 148.
“Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned. Article 148 applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. 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,” the high court said.
Furthermore, according to the SC, the signed acknowledgement “was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution,” hence, establishing co-ownership.
Same-sex relationships are normal and must be protected
In his concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen emphasized that homosexual relationships are normal relationships that must be legally recognized.
“To be different is not to be abnormal. A same-sex relationship is a normal relationship and therefore should be covered by Article 148 of the Family Code. Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships,” he said.
“In interpreting our laws, we should be mindful of the reality that our freedoms should be individually and socially meaningful. This case serves as an instance wherein we can use the law to protect people who are not entirely within its fringes,” Leonen added.
Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro‑Javier said that Article 148 is “too general” and may “encompass even cohabitations between homosexual couples.”
She went on to say that “given the prevailing values in modern society as well as the glaring yet unjustified difference in the treatment of homosexual couples vis-à-vis their homosexual counterparts,” she does not “see any reason why the protection of Article 148 of the Family Code should not be extended to members of the LGBTQI+ community.
Congress must take action
Meanwhile, the SC is calling on the Congress and other branches of the government to address the rights of same-sex couples.
The SC said that the courts alone cannot resolve these issues, especially without laws that recognize same-sex union.
“[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,” it said.