The need for a radical change in Filipino society regarding our gender relations and inclusivity has been a long-standing issue in the country. Recently, it has gained traction as the Supreme Court (SC) released its ruling on Josef v. Ursua, affirming the rights of same-sex couples to co-ownership of property under the Family Code of the Philippines.
The case of same-sex cohabitation and contribution
In 2006, Jennifer C. Josef and Evalyn G. Ursua, who had been a live-in couple since 2005, bought a house in Quezon City, the subject property in the case. The house title was registered under Ursua’s name for convenience since the bank loan was also under her name. By 2007, Ursua signed an Acknowledgment of Third-Party Interest in Real Property (Acknowledgment) recognizing Josef as a main contributor, having paid 50% of the expenses for the acquisition and renovation of the property.
Eventually, the couple separated and agreed to sell the house and split the proceeds. However, for some reason, Ursua suddenly refused to sell the house and denied Josef’s claim on the property. In her answer to Josef’s Affidavit of Adverse Claim, Ursua stated that she had exclusive ownership of the property, yet likewise admitted that she signed the Acknowledgment, only that she didn’t intend to be bound by it.
Josef filed a Complaint for Partition and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which it dismissed for the reason that Josef allegedly failed to prove her contributions to the acquisition and renovation of the house. The Court of Appeals (CA) likewise affirmed the RTC’s decision, but with modification—deleting Ursua’s counterclaim on moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
When both of their respective Motions for Partial Reconsideration were denied by the CA, Josef refiled a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (SC) to seek reconsideration of her co-ownership on the property, specifically with her not sufficiently establishing her right through Ursua’s signed Acknowledgment.
The ruling
The SC granted the complaint for partition of real estate, as it clarified the provisions in the Family Code of the Philippines, namely Articles 147 and 148, governing the property relations of couples living together.
As a preface, Ursua argued for the lack of protection of same-sex couples who acquire properties during cohabitation, leaving persons unprotected on issues such as this, should they separate from their partners. Unlike same-sex couples, heterosexual or straight relationships, as well as their property rights without the benefit of marriage, are protected under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.
Essentially, Ursua sought property rights protection under the said provisions.
“With this, there is a clear lack of protection provided by our laws, primarily the Family Code, given its inherent and discriminatory favor towards heterosexual couples, which deprives petitioner of her property rights and interests,” said the SC.
The SC resolved the point of contention that is Ursua’s co-ownership and contributions on the property through Josef’s signed and admitted signing of the Acknowledgment; ultimately stating that the former is a rightful co-owner of the property and that the 50% share of the property is the minimum share that she should receive.
Which then begs the question of the Family Code provisions.
“Yet, the time for a definitive judicial fiat may not yet be here. This is not the case that presents the clearest actual factual backdrop to make the precise reasoned judgment our Constitution requires. Perhaps, even before that actual case arrives, our democratically-elected representatives in Congress will have seen the wisdom of acting with dispatch to address the suffering of many of those who choose to love distinctively, uniquely, but no less genuinely and passionately,” said Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
In evaluating the matter, the SC acknowledged that while Articles 147 and 148 govern the property regime for void marriages, the nuance is ambiguous in a country that does not recognize same-sex marriage, nor traditionally and religiously welcomes the idea of homosexuality.
Article 147 states that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
This applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.
While Article 148 states that in cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal.
Article 148 applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.
In this view, since the Family Code only allows marriage and defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, same-sex couples necessarily fall under Article 148.
A positive step towards the recognition and acknowledgment of same-sex couples’ rights
In its release, the news immediately caught wind amongst the general public. While some contend that same-sex couples’ property rights were never undermined under the Family Code, most were overjoyed by the fact that it was even acknowledged in the first place.
“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,” said Leonen in his concurring opinion.
“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.”
The LGBTQIA+ community and the large population saw this case as a win and a big step towards establishing the reality of their presence and the need for their rights to be respected and strengthened in Filipino society.
STLAF prides itself on being inclusive. We do not tolerate nor condone discrimination in our practice. We believe that everyone deserves to enjoy their rightful equal rights without prejudice to others. Should you have concerns regarding such matters, do not hesitate to reach out to us, and we will see to it that your concerns are answered and solved.
Disclaimer: The content of this blog is intended for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations may vary by jurisdiction, and the applicability of the information herein may differ depending on specific facts and circumstances. Accessing or reading this content does not create an attorney–client relationship. For legal concerns or tailored guidance, please consult a qualified lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
Whether you are based in the Philippines or overseas, STLAF offers legal services to both local and international clients. Our team is equipped to assist with cross-border matters, provide jurisdiction-specific guidance, and help you navigate complex legal challenges with confidence.
To read more STLAF legal tidbits, visit https://stlaf.global/bits-of-law.
For comments, suggestions, and inquiries, email legal@sadsadtamesislaw.com.
Author/s: Patricia Minimo
About the author(s): Patricia is STLAF's Legal Writer-Researcher. She is a Communication graduate from the University of the Philippines – Baguio with a major in Journalism and a minor in Speech Communication.