In the Philippines, many same-sex couples quietly build a life together, yet when relationships end, one painful question often arises: Sino ang may-ari? Because same-sex marriage is still not legally recognized, LGBTQ+ partners are not protected by the property regimes of the Family Code. This makes understanding the property rights of same-sex couples in the Philippines crucial, especially when property is registered in only one partner’s name despite joint financial contribution. Without proper documentation and legal awareness, years of shared investment can quickly turn into a legal battle.
In the case of Jennifer C. Josef v. Evalyn G. Ursua (G.R. No. 267469, promulgated February 5, 2025), the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the complex legal landscape of property ownership within same-sex relationships. The facts reveal that Jennifer Josef and Evalyn Ursua, while in a long-term same-sex union, purchased a residential property in Quezon City. Although the property was registered solely in Ursua’s name for administrative convenience, the parties executed an Acknowledgment of Third-Party Interest in Real Property in 2007, wherein Ursua explicitly admitted that Josef contributed “about fifty percent (50%)” of the funds for the acquisition and renovation.
Following their separation, Ursua refused to recognize Josef’s interest or proceed with the sale of the property, leading Josef to file a complaint for judicial partition. The lower courts initially dismissed the claim, reasoning that same-sex couples are excluded from the property regimes under the Family Code and that Josef had not sufficiently proven the exactness of her financial contributions.
The Supreme Court’s ruling provides a landmark clarification on the property rights of LGBTQ+ individuals under Philippine law. It ruled that property disputes between same-sex partners are governed by the general principles of co-ownership and contract law under the New Civil Code. Specifically, the Court cited Article 484, which provides that "[t]here is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons," and Article 1306, which guarantees the autonomy of parties to establish stipulations in contracts, provided they do not violate law or public policy.
Additionally, the High Court cited Article 148 of the Family Code of the Philippines, stating that same-sex couples who cohabit or maintain a live-in arrangement during their relationship, are governed by a strict rule of co-ownership. Unlike other unions, there is no presumption of equal sharing, instead, ownership is limited only to properties where actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry can be proven.
In arriving at the share attributable to each party, the High Court further applied the doctrine of contra proferentem to protect the petitioner’s interest. Under Article 1377 of the Civil Code, which dictates that "[t]he interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity," the Court resolved the ambiguous phrase "about fifty percent" in the Acknowledgment against Ursua, who had drafted the document.
Consequently, the Court recognized Josef as a 50% owner of the property. Based on Article 494 of the Civil Code, which mandates that "[n]o co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership" and that "[e]ach co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common," the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, granted the partition, and remanded the case to Branch 87 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the immediate execution of the property’s division or sale.
If you are in a same-sex relationship and have jointly acquired property, do not rely on verbal assurances or informal arrangements. Proper documentation such as co-ownership agreements, acknowledgments of contribution, contracts, and estate planning instruments, can decisively protect your legal rights. The law provides remedies, but only when contributions are provable and rights are clearly asserted. If you need guidance on safeguarding your property, structuring agreements, or pursuing partition, you can contact us at inquiries@mpeclaw.com or (+63) 976 385 6705 to schedule a consultation.