Co-ownership rights of same-sex couples recognized, signals need for equality

MANILA — Same-sex couples have been recognized as co-owners of property under the Article 148 of the Family Code, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled, provided that there is “proof of actual contribution.”

This decision has the markings of inclusivity, says Rainbow Rights Executive Director Eljay Bernardo in a statement sent to Bulatlat. “The Supreme Court decision affirms the long-known truth that a number of LGBTQ+ couples are cohabiting and some presumptions under Article 148 of the Family Code apply to them.”

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, has affirmed property rights protections through a ruling that recognizes a woman as co-owner of a house and lot she shared with her former same-sex partner. 

Granting her complaint for partition, the high court acknowledged that the couple had lived together and jointly invested in the Quezon City property, even though it was registered in only one partner’s name to simplify banking arrangements.

After their separation, the pair initially agreed to sell the home and divide the proceeds equally, with one partner signing a written acknowledgement that the other had contributed roughly half of the purchase and renovation costs.

She later reneged on that agreement, refusing to sell and denying any co-ownership. 

Seeking to safeguard her stake, the excluded partner annotated an adverse claim on the property title and pursued partition in court, relying on the signed acknowledgment as evidence of shared ownership.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed her case for lack of proof and ordered her to pay damages, while the Court of Appeals (CA) largely upheld that decision. Reversing both rulings, the Supreme Court restored her claim and affirmed her ownership rights.

Both the high court and gender equality advocates recognize that this decision may not be enough as the Family Code only allows marriage between a man and a woman.

“However, we must remember that Article 148 of the Family Code applies to unions/cohabitation that are bigamous or void, ” said Bernardo.

“This provision of law is particularly cruel. Is our love for each other invalid and deserves inferior protection from the law?”

The discussion on the applicability of the Article 148 of the Family Code is emphasized in the concurring opinions of the justices.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen explained that the Article 148 does not distinguish based on gender and applies to all forms of cohabitation.

Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier said Article 148 is broad enough to cover same-sex cohabitation.

Furthermore, House Assistant Minority Leader and Kabataan Rep. Renee Co said that the decision exposed the limits of the law. 

“This decision recognizes that our laws have shortcomings in adapting to the realities of today’s society, resulting in discrimination,” Co said in Filipino statement.

The Philippines does not legally recognize same-sex unions, either in the form of marriage or civil unions. Meanwhile, neighboring countries like Taiwan and Thailand, allow same-sex marriage.

“The courts have limits if the law remains outdated. Congress should keep up; let us finally pass the SOGIESC (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, Sexual Characteristics) Equality Bill. Everyone has the equal right to grow old and live with the one they love, and this includes the right to own property and other fundamental rights,” Co reiterated.

The SOGIESC Equality Bill aims to recognize the fundamental rights of every person regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Such a law will pave the way for equal access to social services, opportunities, protection, and justice — prohibiting discrimination based on sexual and gender characteristics.

It has been more than two decades since a bill for that was first filed in the Congress. Despite several attempts, Congress has failed to pass legislation to protect people based on their SOGIESC, particularly the LGBTQ+ communities.

“[T]his Court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples. With the political, moral, and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments especially the Congress must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms,” the SC stated.

In 2018, the SC heard oral arguments about the legalization of same-sex marriage in the country through the case of gay lawyer Jesus Falcis III vs. Civil Registrar-General.

The high court said then that the 1987 Constitution imposes no restrictions on same-sex marriage but advised that the issue is “ideally” for the Congress to decide.

“We hope that institutions, including the executive, Congress, and our courts, continue to affirm inclusivity at every opportunity,” Bernardo ended. (AMU, JDS)

The post Co-ownership rights of same-sex couples recognized, signals need for equality appeared first on Bulatlat.