Philippines takes step towards same-sex property rights

In a predominantly Catholic country where same-sex marriage remains unrecognised, Jennifer Josef v Evalyn Ursua is a significant step in extending property rights to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court held that same-sex partners may acquire enforceable co-ownership rights under article 148 of the Family Code, when they jointly contribute to property. The ruling affirms that same-sex relationships can give rise to rights the law will recognise and protect.

Acknowledgment secures co-ownership interest rights

During their cohabitation, Jennifer Josef and Evalyn Ursua acquired a house and lot. The property was registered in Ursua’s name. However, Ursua executed an Acknowledgment of Third-Party Interest in Real Property, recognising Josef’s participation in acquiring and renovating the property. She also acknowledged Josef’s 50% interest, subject to actual payment of her share in the purchase price and renovation expenses. Josef later filed an affidavit of adverse claim, placing third parties on notice of her interest in the property.

When the relationship ended, Josef sought recognition of her interest and partition. The lower courts rejected her claim for lack of independent proof of contribution. The Supreme Court reversed this. As Ursua admitted signing the acknowledgment, its authenticity and due execution were established. Construing the ambiguity in the acknowledgment against Ursua as its author, the court held she had recognised 50% as Josef’s minimum interest, and any greater share would require supporting records.

Article 148 applies to same-sex couples

The Josef case’s key development is the court’s express application of the Family Code’s property rules to same-sex couples, particularly article 148.

Article 147 applies to a man and a woman who are legally capacitated to marry each other but live together without a valid marriage. It broadly recognises their joint efforts in acquiring property, and treats care and maintenance of the family and household as a form of contribution.

Article 148 governs cohabitation outside article 147. Only property acquired through the parties’ actual joint contribution of money, property or industry is owned in common. Their shares are proportionate to their contributions. However, it grants a presumption of equality in contribution in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Because Philippine law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the court held article 148 applies to same-sex couples like Josef and Ursua.

Ursua’s acknowledgment document established Josef’s actual contribution. Considering there is no sufficient proof overcoming article 148’s presumption of equality, Josef was recognised as a 50% co-owner. This principle has long been part of Philippine jurisprudence. In Tumlos v Spouses Fernandez, the Supreme Court held that mere cohabitation does not create co-ownership under article 148, rather actual contribution to the property’s acquisition must be proved. In Saguid v Court of Appeals, the court similarly stressed that co-ownership extends only to the extent of the parties’ proven contributions, subject to the statutory presumption of equality where the respective proportions are not established. The Josef case expressly extends this framework to same-sex cohabitation.

Practical protections for same-sex couples

This case provides both protection and practical guidance for same-sex couples. To ensure protection, couples should document ownership interests through agreements, acknowledgments, proof of payment and records of contributions. Significantly, the law grants the presumption of equality once actual joint contribution is established.

The protection, however, remains limited. Unlike article 147, it does not expressly deem care and maintenance of the family and household as a contribution to acquisition. More broadly, the Josef case does not confer marital status or the full range of rights that Philippine law attaches to marriage. Instead, the court resolves the property dispute through established rules on co-ownership, contribution and contract interpretation.

Adverse claims and diligent due diligence

For same-sex couples, where only one partner appears on the title, agreements, acknowledgments and payment records may be critical in establishing co-ownership. A partner claiming an unregistered interest may also consider annotating an adverse claim, where legally available, to give third parties notice of the asserted interest.

For purchasers and lenders, the decision reinforces that due diligence is indispensable. Reviews should not stop with the registered owner, but also consider title annotations, including adverse claims and circumstances suggesting that another person may assert an ownership interest in the property.

Nilo T Divina is a founder and managing partner, Ciselie Marie T Gamo-Sisayan is a partner, and Angel Isah M Romero is an associate at DivinaLaw in Metro Manila

DIVINALAW
8/F Pacific Star Bldg,
Sen Gil Puyat Ave
cor Makati Ave,
Makati City 1200, Philippines
www.divinalaw.com
Contact details:
T: +63 2 8822 0808
E: nilo.divina@divinalaw.com
E: ciselie.gamo@divinalaw.com
E: angel.romero@divinalaw.com