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

(SPOT.ph) The Supreme Court has made it official: same-sex couples who live together can be legally recognized as co-owners of property—if they can prove they actually paid for it.

In a ruling released on February 10, the Supreme Court said that contentions between same-sex partners over shared property are governed by existing rules in the Family Code. That means a house, condominium, or lot doesn’t automatically belong to just the person whose name is on the title.

The decision follows a real dispute between two women who lived together as a couple in a house they purchased in 2006. For convenience, the property was registered under just one partner’s name. When they broke up, they agreed to sell the house and split the proceeds evenly. One of them even signed a written acknowledgment saying the other paid roughly half of the purchase and renovation costs.

However, one partner refused to sell the property and denied that her former partner had any ownership at all. With no sale happening, the former partner tried to protect her share by filing an adverse claim on the title and eventually bringing the case to court.

Also read: In QC, LGBTQ+ Patients No Longer Have to Defend Who They Are to Get Basic Medical Care

Under the Family Code, couples who can legally marry are generally presumed to jointly own property they purchase while living together. For couples who are not allowed to marry, ownership depends on what each person actually contributed.

Because the law still defines marriage as between a man and a woman, the Supreme Court said same-sex couples fall under the second category, as per Article 148 of the Family Code.

"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," Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen wrote in a separate opinion.

"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," Leonen wrote.

However, the Supreme Court also stressed that rulings like this can only go so far. Without a law recognizing same-sex marriage, it said broader protections for same-sex couples will have to be enacted by Congress and other branches of government.

Also read: Vatican Gives Its Blessings to LGBTQ+ Couples in Landmark Ruling