In the recent case of Josef v. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, 5 February 2025, decided by the Supreme Court, it ruled that the property relations under Article 148 of the Family Code is now applicable to same-sex couples, provided that there is contribution from both parties and proof thereof.
Our readers may ask, “What is Article 148 in the first place?” Under our Family Code –
Article 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, 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. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
x x x
To put it simply, properties acquired by two parties living exclusively together but are incapacitated to marry each other, are considered co-owners of the property that they have acquired through their joint efforts in proportion to their contribution. If there is no proof of their respective contributions, the law deems them owners of the property in equal proportion.
This recent case involves Josef and Ursua, a same-sex couple living together and later purchasing a house and lot registered solely in the name of the other. When they separated, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. Ursua signed an Acknowledgment of Third-Party Interest in Real Property, allegedly acknowledging co-ownership of the property between herself and Josef, and recognizing that the latter paid 50% of the expenses in the acquisition and renovation of the property. This Acknowledgement was admitted by Ursua in her Judicial Affidavit. However, she later refused to sell the property, and all together refused to recognize Josef as a co-owner and give her a share of the property.
The High Court ruled that the Acknowledgment signed by Ursua was sufficient proof that she recognized that a 50% share, if not a fraction thereof, belonged to Josef. Since both parties are of the same sex, Article 148 of the Family Code governs their property relations due to their incapacity to marry each other under our laws.
What does this ruling mean for same-sex couples?
Article 148 of the Family Code has been usually applied and interpreted in relation to couples of the opposite sex. The case of Josef v. Ursua is legally significant and transformative because it expressly confirms - for the first time in a clear doctrinal statement - that Article 148 of the Family Code applies to same-sex couples, thereby recognizing their right to co-ownership of property acquired through actual joint contribution. Prior to this case, the author notes that there is no definitive Supreme Court ruling clearly applying Article 148 to same-sex couples, which often leads to protracted disputes or at least, placed a cloud of doubt on ownership rights of similarly-situated couples.
While Josef v. Ursua is a most welcome development, it is important to note that this case still does not legalize same-sex marriage and more importantly, does not give same-sex couples absolute community of property, conjugal partnership, successional rights as spouses, or automatic inheritance.
(Atty. Iris Abigail C. Poraque is a Junior Associate of HG Law. For inquiries or comments regarding this article, she may be reached at icporaque@hglaw.ph)