Property Rights in Same-Sex Unions: The Applicability of Article 148 of the Family Code and the Requirement of Actual Contribution
In the Philippine legal system, the property relations of couples living together without the benefit of marriage are governed by the Family Code under the regime of “Unions Without Marriage.” While the law primarily envisions heterosexual unions, recent jurisprudence has clarified the application of these rules to same-sex couples, specifically regarding their right to be recognized as co-owners of property acquired during their cohabitation.
The Legal Framework: Article 147 vs. Article 148
The Family Code provides two distinct regimes for property ownership in non-marital unions. Article 147 applies to a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and live exclusively as husband and wife without marriage or under a void marriage. Under this article, properties acquired through their joint efforts, work, or industry are owned by them in equal shares, and even a party who did not participate in the acquisition is deemed to have contributed if they cared for the family and household.
However, the term “capacitated to marry each other” is a significant legal hurdle for same-sex couples. The Family Code defines marriage strictly as a union between a man and a woman (Family Code, Art. 1). Consequently, same-sex couples are deemed not capacitated to marry each other under current Philippine jurisdiction. Because they do not fall under the requirements of Article 147, their property relations are governed by Article 148 (Josef v. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, February 5, 2025).
The Stringent Requirement of Actual Contribution under Article 148
Article 148 of the Family Code applies to cases of cohabitation not falling under Article 147, including unions where parties suffer from a legal impediment to marry. Unlike the liberal presumptions in Article 147, Article 148 dictates that 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.
For co-ownership to be recognized under this article, two conditions must be met: (1) the properties must have been acquired during the cohabitation; and (2) there must be evidence that the properties were acquired through their actual joint contribution. In the absence of proof of actual contribution, there is no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares (Lavadia v. Heirs of Luces Luna, 739 Phil. 331).
Jurisprudential Application: Josef v. Ursua
The Supreme Court recently applied these principles in the case of Jennifer C. Josef v. Evalyn G. Ursua (G.R. No. 267469, February 5, 2025) (“Josef Case”). The case involved a same-sex couple who lived together and purchased a house and lot, which was registered solely in the name of one partner to facilitate bank transactions .
The Court ruled that because the parties were a same-sex couple, Article 148 of the Family Code governed their property. The pivotal evidence in this case was an “Acknowledgment of Third-Party Interest in Real Property” signed by the respondent, which expressly recognized that the petitioner had financed and paid for 50% of the expenses for the acquisition and renovation of the property.
The Court held that this Acknowledgment served as proof of actual contribution. Under the doctrine of estoppel, the respondent was barred from questioning the petitioner’s contribution after having admitted it in a signed document. Consequently, once the actual contribution was proven, the shares were prima facie presumed equal, and the petitioner was declared a co-owner to the extent of 50% of the property.
While Philippine law does not currently recognize same-sex marriage, the judiciary provided a pathway for same-sex partners to protect their economic interests. Article 148 of the Family Code serves as the legal basis for co-ownership in such unions. However, partners must be diligent in maintaining documentation, as the law necessitates clear proof of actual contribution of money, property, or industry to establish a rightful claim over shared assets.
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 .
