ANALYSIS: Could a Supreme Court decision be the first step on the road to same-sex marriage?

DISCLAIMER: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, Atty. Nena Radoc, CPA-Lawyer-MBA, former Senior Vice President of the Bases Conversion Development Authority.

On February 4, 2026, the Philippine Supreme Court promulgated a landmark decision in Josef v. Ursua (GR # 267469) that clarified the property rights of same-sex couples who are living together.

Although the ruling did not make same-sex marriage legal in the Philippines, it recognized that same-sex partners may legally co-own property acquired during their cohabitation or during the time they lived together. But there is a condition: they should prove they actually contributed in purchasing the property.

Even if the Supreme Court decision is limited in scope, it carries important implications for property relationships. The decision raises more legal questions about the future of same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

Photo by Leticia Fracalosi/Unsplash via Wix

BEFORE THE DECISION

Under the Family Code of the Philippines, marriage is defined as “a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.” Because of this definition, same-sex marriage or cohabitation remains unrecognized under the law.

For married couples, property relations are governed by established property regimes, such as conjugal partnership of gains or absolute community of property, extensively discussed under the Family Code.

In addition, Articles 147 and 148 of the Code provide rules for couples who live together without a valid marriage.

Article 147 applies to a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage.

In such cases, properties acquired during cohabitation are presumed to be jointly owned, even without strict proof of contribution.

Article 148, on the other hand, applies to relationships not covered by Article 147, such as when one or both of the parties are validly married to others.

Under Article 148, co-ownership exists only in proportion to actual contributions of money, property, or industry. There is no automatic presumption of equal ownership unless contribution is proven.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, same-sex cohabitation often faced uncertainty in asserting property rights, particularly when property was registered in the name of only one partner, since this type of relationship has not been legally recognized at all.

THE CASE OF JOSEF VS. URSUA

This case involves a same-sex couple who cohabited or lived together for a significant period. During their relationship, they acquired a house and lot, but the property was registered in the name of only one partner.

When their relationship soured, the other partner claimed co-ownership over the property, alleging financial contributions toward its acquisition and renovation.

The titled partner acknowledged that the other partner did indeed participate financially in purchasing and making improvements on the property through a “written acknowledgment”, but the titled partner denied that there was co-ownership over the property.

The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled adversely against the claimant. The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that cohabiting same-sex partners may be recognized as co-owners of a property acquired during their relationship under Article 148 if there is evidence of actual joint contribution.

The Court emphasized two essential requirements:

1. The property must have been acquired during the period of cohabitation.

2. There must be proof of actual contribution by both partners. In that particular case, the written acknowledgment by one partner that the other contributed to the purchase and renovation of the property became a decisive evidence.

The Court found that the acknowledgment sufficiently proved actual contribution and declared the claimant entitled to a

50% share of the property. The case was remanded or sent back to the trial court for appropriate partition proceedings.

The ruling did not create a new law. Rather, it clarified that Article 148 could apply to same-sex couples and that courts must recognize legitimate property contributions even if the relationship itself cannot result in marriage.

IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY RELATIONS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES

The decision has several significant effects on property relations in the Philippines.

First, it promotes property protection for same-sex couples. Previously, a partner whose name did not appear on the title could lose everything upon separation from or death of the titled partner.

Now, with clear proof of contribution, that partner can assert a legal share.

Second, the ruling upholds fairness and equity. It prevents unjust enrichment, where one partner benefits from the financial or labor contributions of the other without proper compensation.

Third, it encourages better documentation. Same-sex couples are now more likely to keep records of payments, execute written agreements, or formally acknowledge contributions to avoid future disputes.

However, the ruling also confirms limitations. Unlike cohabiting man and woman under Article 147, same-sex partners do not enjoy automatic presumption of shared ownership under Article 148. They must still prove individual contribution.

FUTURE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES

Although the case dealt strictly with property rights, its implications reach into the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage in the Philippines.

By acknowledging co-ownership, the Supreme Court accepts the reality that such relationships function similarly as marital unions in financial terms.

The decision, however, also reinforces that marriage remains as legally defined under the Family Code - between a man and a woman. The Court did not reinterpret or expand the definition of marriage.

Any change in that definition must come from Congress, not the judiciary. The Philippines remains predominantly Catholic, and the Catholic Church does not recognize same-sex marriage.

So, unless the recognition comes from the Church, it is unlikely that Congress will take the first radical step any time soon.

But, at least, the decision has acknowledged that same-sex relationships are now part of social reality, and this can lead to more focus given to property relationships of same-sex couples.

The ruling can be viewed as incremental progress. For now, cohabiting same-sex couples in the Philippines have clearer property rights — but not yet marital status.

Whether or not future reforms will expand these rights into full legal recognition of same-sex marriage or relationships, only time can tell.