MANILA, Philippines, Feb. 10, 2026 — In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples who live together may be recognized as co-owners of property under Article 148 of the Family Code, provided they can show proof of actual contribution.

The ruling stemmed from a case involving two women who cohabited and purchased a house and lot in Quezon City during their relationship. When the relationship ended, one partner filed a complaint for partition of property, which was initially dismissed by the Regional Trial Court and later upheld by the Court of Appeals. 

The Supreme Court reversed those rulings, granting the petition and recognizing her as a co-owner of the property.

In its 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court explained that Article 148 governs property relations of couples who live together but are not legally capacitated to marry. 

“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,” the decision stated.

Article 148 provides that only properties acquired through the parties’ actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned in common, in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, contributions and shares are presumed equal. 

This provision has long applied to couples barred from marriage, and the Court clarified that same-sex couples fall within its scope.

The ruling is seen as a significant step toward recognizing the rights of LGBTQIA+ couples in the Philippines, where same-sex marriage remains illegal. Advocates hailed the decision as a breakthrough in property rights, though they emphasized that broader reforms — such as the passage of the SOGIE Equality Bill — are still needed to ensure equal protection under the law.

Legal experts note that while the decision does not legalize same-sex marriage, it provides a clear framework for property ownership disputes among same-sex partners, ensuring that contributions made during cohabitation are legally recognized. The case is expected to set a precedent for similar disputes in the future. 

Rights Recognized Without Marriage

The Supreme Court’s ruling shows how rights can expand even without new legislation. By applying Article 148 to same-sex couples, the Court recognized that cohabitation creates real economic partnerships that deserve legal protection.

This is a form of accountability by the judiciary, filling gaps left by a political system that avoids direct recognition of LGBTQIA+ relationships. Instead of waiting for lawmakers to act, the courts are shaping equality through existing legal frameworks, one dispute at a time.

If fundamental protections can only be secured through litigation, how accessible is justice for couples who lack the money, proof, or power to fight in court?