How Can Same-Sex Couples Claim Co-Ownership Under Article 148?
Introduction
Same-sex partners in the Philippines do not acquire property rights merely because they lived together as a couple. However, a partner may claim co-ownership when there is sufficient proof of an actual contribution of money, property, or industry toward the acquisition, construction, or improvement of the property.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Josef v. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, 2025, confirms that Article 148 of the Family Code may protect the property interests of same-sex partners even though Philippine law does not recognize same-sex marriage. The ruling does not create a general marital property regime for same-sex couples. Instead, it applies the rules on co-ownership based on proven contributions and the parties’ own admissions.
What Does Article 148 Provide?
Article 148 of the Family Code applies to cohabitation not covered by Article 147. It provides that only property acquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry is owned in common.
The parties’ shares are generally proportional to their respective contributions. However, once actual joint contribution is established, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed equal unless the contrary is proven.
Article 148 also covers joint deposits of money and evidences of credit. Where one party is validly married to another person, that party’s share may accrue to the existing absolute community or conjugal partnership, subject to the circumstances provided by law.
Why Does Article 148 Apply to Same-Sex Partners?
Article 147 refers to a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively as husband and wife without a valid marriage or under a void marriage. Philippine law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Because same-sex partners are not legally capacitated to marry each other under the Family Code, their property relations do not fall under Article 147. The Supreme Court held in Josef v. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, 2025, that Article 148 governs their property claims.
This does not mean that same-sex partners automatically receive equal shares in all property acquired during their relationship. The claimant must first establish actual contribution. Without proof of contribution, the presumption of equal shares does not arise.
What Must a Partner Prove?
A partner claiming co-ownership under Article 148 should establish two matters:
- the property was acquired during the parties’ cohabitation; and
- the claimant made an actual contribution of money, property, or industry toward its acquisition or improvement.
Actual contribution may include direct payments for the purchase price, construction expenses, mortgage amortization, taxes, substantial repairs, or other expenses connected with the property.
Contribution may also consist of property or industry. Industry may include work that directly contributes to the acquisition, construction, preservation, or improvement of the property. General emotional support or the existence of a romantic relationship, by itself, is insufficient.
Does Household Work Count as Contribution?
Article 147 expressly treats family and household care as joint contribution in the situations covered by that provision. Article 148, however, requires proof of actual joint contribution.
Accordingly, a claimant relying on household work under Article 148 should show how that work enabled the other partner to acquire or improve the property. Evidence may include proof that one partner assumed household expenses, cared for dependents, or performed substantial work that directly reduced the cost of construction or maintenance.
The strength of the claim depends on the evidence connecting the household or personal services to the acquisition, preservation, or improvement of the property.
How Did Josef v. Ursua Recognize the Claim?
In Josef v. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, 2025, the claimant and respondent were same-sex partners who had lived together. The claimant asserted an interest in property acquired, constructed, or improved during their cohabitation.
The respondent had signed an acknowledgment stating that the claimant had financed and paid approximately 50 percent of the expenses. The Supreme Court treated this acknowledgment as proof of actual contribution and held that the respondent was estopped from later denying the claimant’s contribution.
The Court further held that the acknowledgment recognized at least a 50 percent interest. Since actual contribution had been admitted, the presumption of equal shares under Article 148 applied. The claimant was therefore recognized as a co-owner entitled to a 50 percent share.
What Evidence Can Establish Co-Ownership?
A claim is stronger when supported by contemporaneous and independent evidence. Relevant documents and testimony may include:
- bank records showing payments for the property or construction;
- receipts, invoices, contracts, and proof of mortgage payments;
- wire transfers, electronic payment records, and joint-account statements;
- acknowledgments, affidavits, written agreements, or messages admitting the claimant’s interest;
- building permits, construction documents, and records identifying the parties’ participation; and
- witness testimony regarding payment, construction work, or property management.
Under the 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131 recognizes presumptions concerning property acquired through joint efforts and contributions in certain cohabitation arrangements. The applicable presumption does not eliminate the need to prove the facts that trigger it, particularly actual contribution in cases governed by Article 148.
Can a Signed Acknowledgment Be Enough?
Yes. A signed acknowledgment may establish actual contribution when its language clearly admits that one partner financed or paid for part of the acquisition or improvement of the property.
The document should be read as a whole. An ambiguous provision may not defeat an otherwise clear admission of a partner’s ownership interest. In Josef v. Ursua, the Supreme Court interpreted the acknowledgment as recognizing a minimum 50 percent interest, while allowing any claim above that amount to be proven through records and documents.
A written acknowledgment may also support an argument based on estoppel. A party who expressly recognized the other partner’s contribution may be prevented from later taking an inconsistent position when the other partner relied on that recognition.
Are the Shares Automatically Equal?
No. Under Article 148, the parties’ shares are generally proportional to their actual contributions. Equal shares are presumed only after actual joint contribution has been established and there is no sufficient proof showing a different allocation.
For example, if one partner proves that they paid 70 percent of the acquisition cost and the other paid 30 percent, the evidence may support a 70-30 ownership allocation. If the evidence establishes joint contribution but does not prove different proportions, the parties’ shares may be presumed equal.
What If the Property Is Registered in Only One Partner’s Name?
Registration in one partner’s name is important evidence of record ownership, but it may not conclusively defeat a proven claim of beneficial co-ownership. The claimant must still present persuasive evidence that they contributed to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of the property.
The title, deed of sale, loan documents, payment records, and written agreements should be examined together. A person who contributed to the property should avoid relying solely on the relationship or on oral assertions that were never documented.
How May the Claim Be Enforced?
A partner may first seek a written settlement, recognition of ownership, or voluntary transfer of the corresponding share. If the parties cannot agree, the claimant may consider an action to establish ownership and demand partition, subject to jurisdiction, prescription, procedural requirements, and the specific facts of the case.
The appropriate remedy may differ depending on whether the property is titled, whether there is an existing mortgage, whether third-party rights are involved, and whether the registered owner disputes the contribution.
Before filing, the claimant should organize the evidence chronologically and identify the exact relief sought. The case may involve ownership, accounting, reimbursement, partition, or a combination of these remedies.
What Happens When One Partner Dies?
The surviving partner’s claim must be distinguished from inheritance rights. A person may first establish their own share as a co-owner under Article 148. Only the deceased partner’s share becomes part of the estate, subject to succession law, debts, and the rights of compulsory heirs.
Joint deposits require separate examination of the account agreement, the source of the funds, and evidence of each depositor’s contribution. BIR Ruling No. 1126-18 recognized, for tax purposes, that only the decedent’s share in a joint deposit is generally included in the estate, unless the facts establish otherwise.
Can a Partner Transfer or Sell the Property?
A partner who is not the registered owner should not assume that they can independently sell or mortgage the entire property. A disputed or unregistered interest may require judicial recognition or the cooperation of the registered owner.
Before any sale, mortgage, or transfer, the parties should verify the title, existing liens, tax obligations, and the ownership shares supported by the evidence. A transaction that ignores a documented co-owner may result in litigation and possible claims for damages or annulment, depending on the circumstances.
Common Situations
Joint purchase. If both partners paid portions of the purchase price and the payments can be traced through bank records or receipts, the contributing partner may assert co-ownership even if the title names only one person.
Construction on one partner’s land. A partner who paid for construction or substantial improvements may have a claim relating to the improvements, subject to the title, agreements, proof of payment, and applicable property rules.
Written admission. A signed document stating that one partner owns a percentage of the property may be powerful evidence, especially when supported by payment records.
Unproved contribution. If a partner merely proves cohabitation but cannot show actual contribution, Article 148 does not automatically create co-ownership.
Recommended Steps for a Claimant
- Obtain certified copies of the title, deed, tax declarations, loan documents, and relevant permits.
- Collect bank statements, receipts, electronic payment records, invoices, and construction records.
- Preserve written acknowledgments, messages, emails, and agreements concerning ownership or payment.
- Prepare a timeline showing when the parties lived together and when each payment or improvement occurred.
- Seek legal advice before signing a waiver, quitclaim, settlement, deed of sale, or partition agreement.
Conclusion
Same-sex partners may claim co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code when they prove that the property was acquired during their cohabitation through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry.
Josef v. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, 2025, demonstrates that a clear written acknowledgment may establish actual contribution and support an equal-share presumption. The decision should not be read as granting automatic marital property rights to same-sex couples; it confirms that property claims may be recognized through ordinary rules on co-ownership, proof, estoppel, and Article 148.
The safest course is to document ownership shares at the time property is acquired or improved. Partners should retain payment records, execute a written co-ownership agreement where appropriate, and obtain legal advice before purchasing, financing, transferring, or partitioning property.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
