In the Philippines, the property relations of heterosexual couples are clearly governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, which provide safeguards for parties in unions without marriage. However, these provisions are silent when it comes to same-sex relationships, leaving a gap in the legal protection of their property rights.
This gap, long noted in both legal discourse and lived experience, has recently been addressed in the case of Jennifer C. Josef v. Evalyn G. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, that clarifies and expands the application of Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, recognizing that these provisions may likewise extend to same-sex couples.
In Josef v. Ursua, a complaint for partition of real property with damages was filed against Ursua. Josef alleges that during their cohabitation, they jointly acquired a property, which was registered solely in Ursua’s name. Following the dissolution of their relationship, Josef now seeks recognition of his share in the property.
Ursua, however, denies that Josef contributed to the acquisition of the property and refuses to recognize any co-ownership or entitlement on his part, despite an Acknowledgement Receipt signed by Ursua stating that each party is entitled to a 50% share in the property.
Aggrieved, Josef elevated the case to the Supreme Court to vindicate his claimed rights over the co-owned property. The Court, through Justice Lopez, emphasized that the property regime governing void marriages is provided under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, which apply to unions without marriage.
However, the applicability of these provisions becomes more nuanced in cases involving same-sex cohabitation, given that Philippine law does not recognize same-sex marriage. This legal context raises questions on how property relations between same-sex partners should be properly characterized and governed under existing rules.
The Supreme Court put emphasis on the phrase “capacitated to marry each other” under Article 147 of the Family Code which refers to the legal capacity of parties to enter into marriage. Since the law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, parties of the same sex are not considered legally capable of marrying each other. Thus, Article 147 does not apply; instead, Article 148 governs their property relations.
Requirements before Article 148 of the Family Code applies
Under Article 148, properties acquired during cohabitation may be treated as common property if:
(1) they were acquired during the period of cohabitation; and
(2) there is proof that both parties made actual contributions, whether in money, property, or industry. In such cases, their shares are presumed equal.
However, this presumption applies only if actual contribution is proven. Without such proof, no co-ownership exists and no equal sharing can be presumed. In this case, the Acknowledgment signed by the respondent serves as proof of the petitioner’s contribution, as the respondent expressly recognized the petitioner’s entitlement to a 50% share in the property.
In this context, the determination of co-ownership ultimately hinges on the existence and sufficiency of evidence showing actual contribution. This leads to common questions regarding how property relations between same-sex couples are governed and what legal remedies are available in similar situations.
Frequently Asked questions (FAQs) regarding property relations between same-sex couples:
1. Which law applies to same-sex couples living together?
The Court explained that same-sex couples are covered by Article 148 of the Family Code because Philippine law does not recognize same-sex marriage.
2. What does Article 148 require before a partner can claim property?
A partner must show proof that they actually contributed—either money, property, or work—to acquire the property during their cohabitation.
3. Is co-ownership automatically assumed between partners?
No. Co-ownership is not automatic. There must be evidence that both parties contributed to the purchase or improvement of the property.
4. What happens if one partner cannot prove contribution?
If there is no proof of contribution, the law does not recognize co-ownership, and the property remains solely owned by the registered owner.
5. What should you do if you face this kind of situation?
If you find yourself in a similar situation involving a dispute over property acquired during cohabitation, it is important to gather and secure any evidence of your contribution, such as receipts, bank transfers, agreements, or messages showing your participation in acquiring or improving the property. These will help establish your claim of co-ownership.
You should also seek legal advice early to properly assess your rights under the Family Code and determine whether Article 147 or Article 148 applies to your situation. If necessary, you may file a complaint for partition or other appropriate legal remedies to protect your interest in the property.
Conclusion
While the Family Code provides a framework through Articles 147 and 148, the protection of property interests ultimately requires clear evidence and proper legal action. This decision highlights the importance of understanding one’s rights and documenting contributions to safeguard property claims.
Disclaimer:
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific concerns regarding online harassment, it is best to consult a licensed lawyer.