The Supreme Court Now Recognizes Co-Ownership For Same-Sex Couples—Here's How It Works

Same-sex couples often face challenges that straight couples usually don't. Simple things—like being recognized as each other’s emergency contact or having co-ownership rights to property—can become a big problem if there's an accident or if the relationship ends.

The Supreme Court acknowledged this reality, noting that the lack of legal protections often leaves same-sex partners vulnerable and at risk of being denied their rights and interests—especially when it comes to property they acquired together.

This was highlighted in the recent case Josef v. Ursua, which involved two former same-sex partners disputing ownership of a property they bought while they were still together. Since only one name appeared on the title, conflict arose after their relationship ended. The partner whose name was on the title claimed full ownership and refused to recognize the other's financial contribution.

During the case, Josef—the partner whose name was not on the title—presented a document signed by her former partner, Ursua, acknowledging that Josef had paid for about half of the property. Josef also submitted other evidence to support her claim, including receipts, bank statements, and notebooks.

The Supreme Court ruled that this signed document was a binding admission and enough proof of her actual financial contribution.

"Here, the SC found that the signed Acknowledgement, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution. This established co-ownership," the Supreme Court said in its press release.

The ruling is significant in a country where legal protections around shared property have traditionally been applied in the context of heterosexual relationships. It affirms that same-sex couples who acquire property together are also entitled to legal protection.

Writing for the Court, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, acknowledged that those in same-sex relationships love in their own way, just as sincerely and deeply as anyone else, even if the law has yet to fully recognize their unions.

The Court also clarified that Article 148 of the Family Code—which governs how property is owned and divided between couples who are not married—applies to same-sex partners.

Under Article 148, property is considered co-owned if it was acquired through "actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry," which is to say, effort. To prove co-ownership, the Court said partners must show evidence of their contribution, such as receipts, acknowledgment letters, or other credible proof.

However, the Court also drew a clear line: the ruling does not legalize same-sex marriage. It emphasized that changing marriage laws is a matter for lawmakers—not the courts—because it involves broader social policy. The decision highlights why comprehensive legislation that protects same-sex relationships is still needed.

ICYMI, the proposed SOGIE Equality Bill, which seeks to protect LGBTQIA+ Filipinos from discrimination, has remained stalled in the Senate for almost two years. Last year, during the 19th Congress, 40 priority bills were passed under the Marcos administration—but none included additional legal protections for the LGBTQIA+ community.