Dear PAO,

I found love with my male partner, and we eventually lived together as a couple. We even acquired a house and lot, which we purchased through our earnings. Unfortunately, he became addicted to online gambling, which caused our separation. We are planning to sell the house, but he is demanding a bigger share of the proceeds. I told him that the equal sharing is pursuant to the Family Code of the Philippines, but he claimed that such law finds no application to us since our relationship is not the typical husband and wife or man and woman? Is he correct?

Dursok

Dear Dursok,

In general, there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons (Article 484 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines). The partition of the thing owned in common is also governed by the provision of same law.

With respect to partition of the thing owned in common between parties in a common-law relationship who do not have capacity to marry each other, the same is governed by the provision of the Family Code of the Philippines, particularly Article 148, which reads:

“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. xxx.”

The aforestated provision of the law may also be applied to cohabitation of couples belonging to the same sex. This is backed by the case of Josef v. Ursua, GR 267469, Feb. 5, 2025, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, stated that:

“Notably, the term “capacitated to marry each other” under Article 147 of the Family Code pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage. The Family Code defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. 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.

“Under Article 148 of the Family Code, the properties acquired during cohabitation can be considered the common property of petitioner and respondent if: (1) these were acquired during their cohabitation; and (2) there is evidence that the properties were acquired through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry. Such contributions and corresponding shares of the parties are prima facie presumed to be equal. However, for this presumption to arise, proof of actual contribution is required. Thus, if the actual contribution of a party is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and there can be no presumption of equal shares.”

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, Article 148 of the Family Code is not limited to relationships between a man and a woman, but applies with equal force to same-sex relationships. Thus, the things owned in common by couples belonging to the same sex are governed by and may be partitioned in accordance with Article 148 of the same Code, contrary to the claim of your former partner.

However, take note that before a property may be considered as common property of the couple, there must be proof of actual contribution, i.e., the person claiming a share in the property actually paid or contributed out of his or her personal money or property. The property is co-owned by the couple based on the extent of their respective contributions. If the full extent of the couple’s respective contribution cannot be established, the law presumes equal contribution between the couple.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was 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 trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]