The Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex couples’ co-ownership rights marks a significant legal milestone, but how does the ruling actually affect LGBTQA+ equality in the Philippines?
If you’ve been keeping up with current affairs, one of the stories that made headlines is the Supreme Court’s (SC) recognition of same-sex couples’ co-ownership of property. In a promulgated decision dated February 5, 2025, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the SC’s Second Division recognized the application of Article 148 of the Family Code as the governing property regime for cohabiting same-sex couples in the Philippines who “cannot legally marry, acknowledging co-ownership based on their actual contributions.”
While this marks a departure from the usual stories I produce, as a magazine writer currently taking up law (yes, I’m happily living my Elle Woods x Andy Sachs fantasy), it’s hard not to appreciate how groundbreaking this SC decision is. It doesn’t just shift legal precedent—it signals a meaningful step forward for equality and recognition in everyday life.
READ ALSO: LA Phones A Friend: Should I Get A Prenup?
Digesting The Facts On Same-Sex Co-Ownership
According to a SC press release dated February 10, 2026, the case began with a lesbian couple living together as partners. About a year into their relationship, they decided to purchase a house and lot in Quezon City and agreed to register the property under one partner’s name to simplify banking and financial transactions.
But not every relationship lasts—some are fleeting. The couple eventually separated and agreed to sell the property, planning to split the proceeds equally. One partner even signed an acknowledgment confirming that the other had covered about half of the purchase and renovation costs. Yet later, she refused to go through with the sale and denied that her former partner had any claim as a co-owner.
The property dispute made its way to the Regional Trial Court, which dismissed the case for lack of proof of contribution and even ordered the former partner to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, but reversed the award for damages. That ruling prompted an appeal to the SC, and this is the part where things start to get interesting (cases like this make for great reads).
The Decision And The Rational Behind It
The SC reversed the decisions of both lower courts (which is a rare occurrence), highlighting the property regimes umarried couples living together can avail of under the Family Code.
“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,” the SC states in its press release.
Yet the Court applied Article 148 of the Family Code to the case, because the Family Code still defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. As such, same-sex couples can’t claim the benefits of the property regime under Article 147 (presumed co-ownership). Since both partners in this case are women, they fall under Article 148 (actual co-ownership based on actual contribution), covering couples who live together but aren’t allowed to marry under the law. In other words, same-sex couples are included in this provision.
The Court’s application of Article 148 hinged on the aforementioned signed acknowledgment, in which one partner admitted that the other had paid about half of the property costs. That admission was binding and served as sufficient proof of actual contribution, effectively establishing co-ownership.
More Than A Legal Precedent For The Community
Scrolling through the comments on the SC’s Facebook post about the decision, it’s clear many people misunderstood the ruling. “More reason to not have the SOGIE Bill passed,” one commenter wrote. But the decision penned by Justice Lopez is a step forward for LGBTQIA+ equality; it doesn’t end the fight, and the SC acknowledges that.
“[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 SC states, explaining its decision.
The Court makes it clear that full equality for same-sex couples still rests with the legislative branch. This ruling only covers properties where both partners made actual, joint contributions, which isn’t the case for every same-sex couple. Sometimes, support comes in the form of “care and maintenance of the family and of the household,” under Article 147 of the Family Code. That provision presumes a partner has contributed to the property even without monetary input—a protection that, for now, same-sex couples cannot access.
It’s a major win, but the fight for equality is far from finished. The recognition of co-ownership for properties held by same-sex couples is only one leaf on a much larger tree of issues the community continues to navigate daily. At the end of the day, the SC resolves questions of law elevated from lower courts—a lengthy, often exhausting process that, arguably, wouldn’t be necessary if comprehensive legislative protections for the LGBTQIA+ community were already in place.
