Supreme Court Recognizes Co-Ownership of Property in Same-Sex Relationships

Case: Jennifer C. Josef v. Evalyn G. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, Second Division, promulgated 05 February 2025 (Lopez, J.)

Real estate disputes are rarely about bricks and mortar. They are about expectations that were never put into writing.

Many couples buy property with a simple arrangement: one pays, one signs, both assume it is fair. That works while the relationship is stable. Once it breaks, the title becomes the weapon and the payer becomes the stranger.

That is the commercial reality the Supreme Court confronted in Josef v. Ursua.

What happened in plain terms:

Two women lived together as a couple. A year into their relationship, they bought a house and lot in Quezon City, but registered it in only one partner’s name to make banking transactions easier.

When the relationship ended, they initially agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. Then the titled owner refused to sell and refused to recognize the other as a co owner.

The turning point was a document the titled owner herself signed: an Acknowledgment stating that the other partner financed and paid about 50 percent of the expenses in acquiring the property and building the improvements.

The core ruling you need to remember:

The Supreme Court recognized co ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code for a same sex couple, but with a clear condition: co ownership depends on proof of actual contribution.

The Court explained the framework simply:

Article 147 applies to couples who are legally capacitated to marry each other.

Because the parties here were of the same sex, the Court held they were not capacitated to marry each other under current Philippine law, so Article 148 governs their property relations.

Under Article 148, you do not win by saying “we lived together.” You win by showing “I actually contributed.”

Why the signed acknowledgment mattered:

The Court treated the Acknowledgment as decisive evidence of actual contribution. It did not accept the titled owner’s later attempt to downplay the document as a mere promise of reimbursement.

Two practical doctrines did the heavy lifting:

First, the Court applied a basic contract principle: if a written provision is ambiguous, it is construed against the person who caused the ambiguity.

Second, the Court applied estoppel. Once the titled owner admitted the other party’s actual contribution, she could no longer credibly deny it when it became inconvenient.

Bottom line: the petitioner was declared a co owner to the extent of 50 percent, and she was entitled to demand partition.

What this means in the real world:

Do not overcomplicate the takeaway. The Supreme Court did not create a new property regime. It enforced a familiar one with discipline.

For same sex couples, Article 148 is the playing field. That means outcomes are documentation driven.

Title still matters. But title is not the end of the conversation when there is credible proof that another person funded the acquisition or the improvements.

Practical playbook for clients and counsel:

1. If you are paying, build a paper trail now.
   Bank transfers, remittance records, receipts, loan amortization payments, renovation invoices, contractor agreements. Under Article 148, evidence is not a bonus. It is the gatekeeper.
2. If the property will be titled in one name, document the economics in writing.
   A short agreement stating the contribution, the intended share, and the exit plan is cheap compared to litigation.
3. Treat acknowledgments as high risk instruments.
   Once you sign a document admitting someone’s share, you are effectively underwriting that person’s claim. Courts will not reward later amnesia.
4. Do not confuse “love and trust” with “risk management.”
   Convenience titling is a business decision. Handle it like one. If you do not control the paperwork, you do not control the outcome.

The takeaway:

Josef v. Ursua is a reality check for anyone who treats property ownership as a relationship issue instead of a governance issue.

If you want the law to recognize your share, you must be able to prove your share. And if you sign a document admitting someone else’s share, expect the courts to hold you to it.