Same-sex couples may be recognized as co-owners of property—SC ruling
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court said that same-sex couples living together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the Family Code, as long as there is proof of actual contribution.
The high court's second division, in a decision by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, granted a former partner's complaint for partition of property and recognized her as a co-owner of the house and lot she shared with her same-sex partner.
According to the SC, the two women purchased a house and lot in Quezon City a year into their relationship. The property was registered under one partner's name, and when they broke up, they agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally.
One partner signed an acknowledgment stating that the other paid 50% of the purchase and renovation costs. However, she later refused to sell the property and denied her former partner as a co-owner.
The former partner later filed a case before the regional trial court, with the acknowledgment as her proof of co-ownership. The RTC, however, dismissed her case and the CA affirmed this decision.
Both parties then went to the SC, which reversed the lower courts.
"Article 147 applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry. Property acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned," the high court said. "Article 148 applies to couple swho are not permitted to marry. Only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property."
Under Art. 147 of the Family Code, the wages and salaries of a man and woman who can marry each other are owned by them in equal shares. The property they both acquired shall be governed by rules on co-ownership.
Meanwhile, for those who can't marry, the properties they both acquired through actual joint contribution shall be owned by them in common proportion to their respective contributions, as per Art. 148.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen explained that Art. 148 does not distinguish based on gender and applies to all forms of cohabitation.
"To be different is not to be abnormal. A same-sex relationship is a normal relationship and therefore should be covered by Article 148 of the Family Code. Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate relationships," he wrote.
"In interpreting our laws, we should be mindful of the reality that our freedoms should be individually and socially meaningful. This case serves as an instance wherein we can use the law to protect people who are not entirely within its fringes."
Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier also supported this.
"Given the prevailing values in modern society as well as the glaring yet unjustified difference in the treatment of heterosexual couples vis-à-vis their homosexual counterparts, I do not see any reason why the protection of Article 148 of the Family Code should not be extended to members of the LGBTQI+ community," she stated.
'Gov't must address same-sex couples' rights'
In its statement, the SC said that Congress and other government branches must address same-sex couples' rights, as "courts alone cannot resolve all related policy concerns."
"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," it said.
"The process of legislation exposes the experiences of homosexuals who have been oppressed, ensuring that they are understood by those who stand with the majority."