Dear PAO,
My mother, Jojovel, has been separated from my father for almost 20 years. When my father left us, my mother raised our family on her own. In recent years, she found happiness with another woman named Leslie. My mother and Leslie had been happily together for the past 7 years. They are now senior citizens and they are worried about the properties they have acquired together. An uncle told my mother that Leslie will not have any right to the properties they co-own because the Family Code only applies to heterosexual marriages and does not apply to same-sex couples. He said that the properties can only be inherited by my mother’s children. Leslie has become very close to us, and we are worried that she would be ousted from their properties if my mother dies. Do my mother and Leslie have any rights to their property as a same-sex couple?
Vhincess
Dear Vhincess,
The Family Code provides certain rules for properties which unmarried couples may have acquired during their relationship. Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code prescribe rules on property regimes for unions without the benefit of marriage.
Article 147 of the said Code governs the property relations between a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other, but live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. On the other hand, Article 148 of the same Code governs for the property relations between couples who are incapacitated to marry each other, i.e., where a legal impediment prevents them from marrying. Its first paragraph states:
“Article 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.”
In the recent case of Jennifer Josef v. Evalyn Ursua (GR 267469, Feb. 5, 2025, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez), the Supreme Court recognized that the provisions of Article 148 of the Civil Code apply to same-sex unions. It held that since same-sex unions are not recognized in our jurisdiction and, therefore, the parties are not capacitated to marry each other. That being the case, it may be considered that the properties jointly acquired by parties in a same-sex union shall be considered as common properties of both parties.
In the case of Leslie and your mother, as a same-sex couple, the properties jointly acquired by them may be considered as co-owned properties. However, in the earlier case of Guillerma Tumlos v. Sps. Mario and Lourdes Fernandez (GR 137650, April 12, 2000, penned by Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban), the Supreme Court emphasized that proof of actual contribution is required to benefit under Article 148 of the Family Code, viz.:
“Under Article 148 of the Family Code, a man and a woman who are not legally capacitated to marry each other, but who nonetheless live together conjugally, may be deemed co-owners of a property acquired during the cohabitation only upon proof that each made an actual contribution to its acquisition. Hence, mere cohabitation without proof of contribution will not result in a co-ownership.”
Thus, while same-sex unions are not formally recognized under our jurisdiction, recent jurisprudence suggests that their property rights may be recognized under the rules on co-ownership. Accordingly, each party in the union may still assert property rights, provided that actual contribution by both parties is shown.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
