The Supreme Court (SC) reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) and a regional trial court (RTC) by ruling that same-sex couples who live together may be co-owners of properties under the Family Code, provided that there is a proof of contribution.

In a 14-page decision, the High Court granted the petitioner’s complaint for partition of property, recognizing her as a co-owner of the house and lot that she shared with her former partner.

According to the Supreme Court, same-sex couples fall under Article 148 of the Family Code.

“Considering that petitioner and respondent have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other, and thus, Article 148 governs their property relations,” it said.

Article 147 of the Family Code applies to a man and a woman who live exclusively with each other as a husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. The property they acquired during their cohabitation is presumed jointly owned.

Meanwhile, the SC said that Article 148 applies to couples who are not permitted to marry. It said that only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

“Co-ownership exists when the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. By the nature of co-ownership, a co-owner cannot point to any specific portion of the property owned in common as their own because their share in it remains intangible and ideal,” it said.

In this case, the couple lived together in 2005. They purchased a house and lot in Quezon City that was covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title a year later.

The Court said the couple agreed to register the property solely in the name of the complainant.

When they separated, they agreed to sell the house and lot and to divide the proceeds equally. The complainant also recognized that her former partner financed and paid 50% of the expenses in the acquisition and renovation of the subject property.

However, the complainant later refused to recognize the petitioner as a co-owner and give her share.

In his concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen stressed that same-sex relationships are normal relationships.

“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 intimate relationships,” he said.

“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,” he added.

Meanwhile, the SC said that it does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples. It said that Congress and other government agencies must be involved in addressing the rights of same-sex couples.

“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. Mostly, public reason needs to be first shaped through the crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat,” it said.

The SC remanded the case back to the Quezon City RTC Branch 87.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, was promulgated in February 2025 and made public in February 2026.