Supreme Court recognizes co-ownership of property in same-sex relationships

Washington Blade

Philippines Supreme Court rules same-sex couples can co-own property

Manila Bulletin

SC settles issue on co-ownership of property in same-sex relationships

BBC News

Philippines: Same-sex couples can co-own property, top court rules

Philippine Supreme Court Public Information Office

267469 Jennifer C. Josef vs. Evalyn G. Ursua  Supreme Court of the Philippines

Metaculus

Share Living Where Same-Sex Marriage is Legal

RSIS International

Ethico-Moral and Legal Implications of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in the Philippines  International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science

NewsWatch Plus PH

SC recognizes same-sex couple property co-ownership

Facebook

Photo

gmanews

INQUIRER.net

Supreme Court recognizes property co-ownership for same-sex couples

PhilSTAR L!fe

Same-sex couples may be recognized as co-owners of propertySC ruling

SCPh_PIO

SPOT.ph

Same-Sex Partners Can Be Co-Owners of Property, According to the Supreme Court

GMA News Online

Supreme Court: Same-sex couples may co-own properties under Family Code

Philstar.com

Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can be recognized as property co-owners

Philippine Supreme Court rules same-sex partners can co-own property

SC rules same-sex couples may co-own properties

Ph Rejects Same Sex Marriage Were Not Ready For That Says Dojs Remulla

The Supreme Court ruled on February 5, 2025, that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of properties under Article 148 of the Family Code if there is proof of actual contribution. The decision reversed lower court rulings.

The Supreme Court ruled on February 5, 2025, that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of properties under Article 148 of the Family Code if there is proof of actual contribution. The decision reversed lower court rulings.

The case involved two women who purchased a house and lot in Quezon City in 2006 and agreed to register the property under one partner's name for banking convenience. After their separation, one partner refused to sell the property or recognize the other as co-owner.

The case involved two women who purchased a house and lot in Quezon City in 2006 and agreed to register the property under one partner's name for banking convenience. After their separation, one partner refused to sell the property or recognize the other as co-owner.

Article 147 of the Family Code applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry, while Article 148 applies to couples who cannot legally marry. Since Philippine law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex couples fall under Article 148.

Article 147 of the Family Code applies to unmarried couples who may legally marry, while Article 148 applies to couples who cannot legally marry. Since Philippine law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex couples fall under Article 148.

The Supreme Court found that a signed acknowledgment in which one partner admitted the other paid approximately 50% of the property's purchase and renovation costs constituted sufficient proof of actual contribution, establishing a valid 50% co-ownership.

The Supreme Court found that a signed acknowledgment in which one partner admitted the other paid approximately 50% of the property's purchase and renovation costs constituted sufficient proof of actual contribution, establishing a valid 50% co-ownership.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen stated that a same-sex relationship is a normal relationship that should be covered by Article 148. Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier said the article is broad enough to cover same-sex cohabitation given prevailing values in modern society.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen stated that a same-sex relationship is a normal relationship that should be covered by Article 148. Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier said the article is broad enough to cover same-sex cohabitation given prevailing values in modern society.

The Supreme Court stated that it does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of same-sex couples and that Congress must be involved through legislation. The court said public reason needs to be shaped through campaigns and advocacies in political forums.

The Supreme Court stated that it does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of same-sex couples and that Congress must be involved through legislation. The court said public reason needs to be shaped through campaigns and advocacies in political forums.

Supreme Court Recognizes Same-Sex Property Co-Ownership

Supreme Court Recognizes Same-Sex Property Co-Ownership

Articles on this story

Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters
Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters

Supreme Court Recognizes Same-Sex Property Co-Ownership

Supreme Court Recognizes Same-Sex Property Co-Ownership

Articles on this story

Sign Up for Our Free NewslettersSign Up for Our Free Newsletters

Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters
Sign Up for Our Free Newsletters