The Supreme Court of the Philippines along Padre Faura Street in Manila. In a February 2025 decision, the High Court held that same-sex partners who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property acquired during their relationship, subject to proof of actual contribution under Article 148 of the Family Code. – PHOTO CREDIT : Wikimedia Commons | patrickroque01 | CC BY-SA 4.0
In a decision promulgated on February 5, 2025, the Court’s Second Division held that Article 148, which governs property relations of couples who cohabit but cannot legally marry, applies to same-sex relationships because Philippine law recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman.
The case, G.R. No. 267469, involved a dispute between former same-sex partners over a residential property acquired during their cohabitation. The property was registered in the name of one partner. After their separation, the other partner filed a complaint for partition, asserting that she contributed to the purchase and renovation of the house and lot.
Lower courts dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient proof of contribution. On review, the Supreme Court reversed those rulings.
Writing for the Court, Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez stated that under Article 148, only properties acquired through the actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in common, and each partner’s share is proportionate to proven contribution.
The Court found that a signed acknowledgment executed by the registered owner, stating that the former partner paid approximately half of the acquisition and renovation costs, constituted an admission against interest and was sufficient to establish co-ownership.
The decision clarifies that while same-sex marriage remains unrecognized under existing Philippine statutes, property disputes arising from same-sex cohabitation may be resolved using established civil law provisions.
Public reaction followed the ruling, including statements from singer-actor Ice Seguerra and filmmaker and former Film Development Council of the Philippines chair Liza Diño, who have previously spoken publicly about the legal and civil dimensions of same-sex relationships in the Philippines.
The ruling does not amend the statutory definition of marriage. Instead, it provides guidance to lower courts on adjudicating ownership disputes based strictly on evidence of contribution, consistent with Article 148 of the Family Code.
