SC Affirms Co-ownership of Property in Same-Sex Relationships

In a significant step toward inclusivity, the Supreme Court recently published the case of Josef v. Ursua penned by Associate Justice J. J. Lopez, recognizing that the rules on co-ownership are applicable to same-sex couples. This development marks a meaningful departure from the traditional interpretation of the Family Code and signals a more responsive legal framework that acknowledges the realities of all relationships.

In his Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice M.V.F. Leonen noted that our laws should be interpreted to have a more mature understanding of the complexities of intimate relationships, including the reality that same-sex couples cohabit and build lives together.

• The Case: Josef v. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, 5 February 2025
• Ruling of the Supreme Court
• Addressing the Gap
• Frequently Asked Questions

The Case: Josef v. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, 5 February 2025

In 2006, Jennifer C. Josef and Evalyn G. Ursua jointly purchased a house and lot located at Quezon City, which they agreed to register solely in Ursua’s name. When they separated, they agreed to sell the said property and to divide the proceeds equally.

To formalize the agreement, Ursua executed and signed an “Acknowledgement” recognizing Josef’s fifty percent (50%) contribution to the acquisition and renovation of the property. Josef later requested partition or compensation corresponding to her share, but Ursua claimed exclusive ownership and emphasized that Josef’s interest should be determined based on actual contributions.

Josef filed a complaint for partition and damages before the Regional Trial Court, which the latter dismissed ruling that Josef did not offer any proof to establish her claim of co-ownership aside from the Acknowledgement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, prompting Josef to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court (SC) via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The SC granted Josef’s petition ruling that Article 148 of the Family Code governs Josef and Ursua’s property relations.

Considering there is co-ownership between both, then each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as her share is concerned. Having rightful interest over the subject property, Josef has the right to demand the division of the subject property.

The SC said, considering that Josef and Ursua have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other, and thus, Article 148 governs their property relations.

Under Article 148, the properties acquired during cohabitation can be considered the common property of Josef and Ursua if:

(1) these were acquired during their cohabitation; and
(2) there is evidence that the properties were acquired through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry.

Such contributions and corresponding shares of the parties are prima facie presumed to be equal. However, for this presumption to arise, proof of actual contribution is required. Thus, if the actual contribution of a party is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and there can be no presumption of equal shares.

Here, the Acknowledgment signed by Ursua shows the actual contribution of Josef. Ursua recognized that Josef is entitled to 50% share of the subject property. Applying the doctrine of estoppel, Ursua is now estopped to question the contribution of Josef.

Having admitted the actual contribution of Josef, their corresponding shares are prima facie presumed equal. Thus, with Article 148 of the Family Code and the Acknowledgement executed by Ursua, Josef is a co-owner to the extent of 50% share of the said property.

Addressing the Gap

Josef’s petition highlighted a key gap in the law: While Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code protects the property rights of the parties to a heterosexual relationship without the benefit of marriage, there is no such equivalent rule for same-sex couples who acquire properties during their cohabitation. Thus, the party who is prejudiced by their partner is left to fend for themself in asserting their rights once the relationship terminates. 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 Josef of her property rights and interests.

The case represents a progressive development in Philippine jurisprudence. Although same-sex marriage remains unrecognized, the SC has taken an important step in safeguarding the property rights of same-sex couples. This decision not only affirms legal protections grounded in fairness and equity but also calls for a re-examination of existing laws to better reflect social realities.

As Justice Leonen said, “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. 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.”