By: Gabby Balcos
Photo courtesy of: Maverick Rhoy De Vera | The LANCE
On February 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a decision that recalibrates property rights for same sex couples. In the case of Jennifer C. Josef v. Evalyn G. Ursua (G.R. No. 267469), the Court ruled that same sex partners who cohabit may be recognized as co-owners of property acquired during their relationship, provided there is sufficient proof of actual contribution.
The ruling is, in many ways, a revisiting of long standing doctrines under the Family Code. Rather than crafting a new category of rights, the Court returned to Articles 147 and 148 and clarified how these provisions apply to same sex unions, grounding its reasoning in statutory interpretation and established jurisprudence.
The controversy arose from a domestic partnership that began in 2005. Jennifer Josef and Evalyn Ursua lived together as a couple and jointly built a household. During their relationship, they acquired a residential property in Quezon City, which was registered solely under Ursua’s name for convenience and to facilitate financial transactions.
In 2007, Ursua executed a notarized “Acknowledgment of Third Party Interest in Real Property,” expressly recognizing that Josef had financed approximately fifty percent of the purchase and renovation costs.
When the relationship later dissolved, the parties initially agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. That understanding eventually collapsed, prompting Josef to seek judicial relief.
Lower courts dismissed Josef’s claim. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City ruled that the notarized acknowledgment was insufficient to establish co-ownership, noting the absence of contemporaneous bank records or documentary proof of payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, maintaining that Josef failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish co-ownership.
After the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Josef's claim, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court, where the central issue became whether the appellate court erred in finding that co-ownership was not sufficiently established through respondent Ursua's signed Acknowledgment
The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts.
Writing for the Second Division, Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez held that the notarized acknowledgment constituted a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution.
The Court emphasized that a party cannot later repudiate a clear admission against interest by invoking the absence of detailed financial receipts from years prior.
Central to the ruling was the interpretation of Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, provisions governing unions without marriage. Article 147 applies to a man and a woman capacitated to marry each other but who live together without formalizing their union. It creates a presumption of equal ownership over properties acquired during cohabitation and recognizes household efforts as valid contributions.
The Court clarified that same sex couples do not fall under Article 147 because they are not legally capacitated to marry under current law. Instead, they are covered by Article 148, which governs cohabitation not falling within the preceding article.
Article 148 imposes a stricter standard. Only properties acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in common. There is no automatic presumption of equal ownership.
The partner asserting co-ownership must prove contribution. However, once actual joint contribution is established and the extent of shares cannot be determined, the law presumes equality.
By placing same sex couples within Article 148, the Court provided doctrinal recognition while maintaining the evidentiary requirements embedded in the statute.
A pivotal element of the ruling was the Court’s treatment of the acknowledgment document. Ursua argued that she did not intend to be bound by it and that Josef’s interest remained subject to further documentation. The Supreme Court rejected this defense.
The Court ruled that a notarized admission acknowledging financial contribution carries legal weight. Once Ursua admitted that Josef paid for roughly half of the property and renovations, that admission satisfied the requirement of actual contribution under Article 148. The absence of decades-old bank records could not defeat a clear written declaration.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, in his concurring opinion, emphasized that Article 148 is gender neutral. He asserted that excluding same sex couples from its coverage would disregard social realities of cohabitation. Additionally, he described same sex relationships as normal intimate partnerships deserving recognition within the framework of existing statutes.
Associate Justice Amy Lazaro Javier likewise addressed what she termed a glaring disparity in treatment between heterosexual and homosexual couples. She maintained that Article 148 is broad enough to encompass same sex cohabitation and that denying such coverage would allow the title partner to be unjustly enriched.
The decision does not resolve broader questions surrounding marriage, adoption, or inheritance. The Court explicitly noted that it does not possess the monopoly to assure the full spectrum of rights for same-sexcouples, underscoring that legislative intervention remains necessary.
Nevertheless, the ruling establishes a clear precedent. It affirms that when actual contribution is proven, co-ownership may arise regardless of the gender composition of the partnership.
As the case returns to the trial court for partition of the property, the High Court’s message is precise. Within the architecture of the existing Family Code, same sex partners are not beyond the reach of property protection.