Love comes in all shapes and forms. One could not choose who he or she loves, and hence, one could not simply decide on his or her sexuality. Relationships, which is a testament to the love between two individuals, are intimate, and for many, is considered to be sacred. Therefore, relationships should in no means be bound by social conformity. The rights and privileges enjoyed by a heterosexual couple should, in all means, extend to same-sex relationships.

Currently, there is no law or jurisprudence which precisely dictates the rules of properties acquired during cohabitation of same-sex couples. Unfortunately, without any clear rules regarding the property rights of same-sex couples, these individuals are left without protection and are subject to legal uncertainties such as having the proper interests and shares of their properties. In essence, such absence of a solid framework for the rights of same-sex couples is contradictory not only to logic, but to the very Constitution itself which is grounded from granting equality and freedom to every Filipino Citizen.

The case of Josef v. Ursua (G.R. No, 267469, 05 February 2026) concerns a dispute over the co-ownership of the property between Jennifer C. Josef, the petitioner, and respondent Evalyn G. Ursua. The two purchased a house and lot during the time they lived together, in which the title was registered under Ursua’s name. Upon the parties’ separation, the two mutually agreed to sell the house and divide the proceeds equally. Ursua, however, changed her mind to sell the house and refused to recognize Josef as the owner of the property despite the latter’s payment and contributions to the subject property. The Regional Trial Court then dismissed the complaint filed by Josef for Partition of Real Estate with Damages which was subsequently appealed by the Court of Appeals.

The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that co-ownership was not sufficiently established through respondent Ursua’s signed acknowledgment. First, the Court determined that such disputes between same-sex couples are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code which requires the actual contribution of the party to be proved. In compliance, the Court noted the existence of the acknowledgement on the part of respondent which stated that petitioner has financed and paid for about 50% of the expenses of the subject property.  As such, the Court ruled that petitioner is a co-owner of the subject property and is therefore entitled to 50% share of the said property. Moreover, the Court also discusses the clear lack of protection of property relations for same-sex couples primarily in the Family Code which discriminately favor heterosexual couples.

Legislation is often affected by cultural restraints and public pressure; consequently, many lawmakers blindly adhere to traditional and conservative norms over individual freedom and basic human rights. It is, however, embedded in our Constitution that all are considered equal before the law, regardless of race, gender, or religion.

Lastly, to reiterate the Supreme Court, attempts to push the legal system in a progressive direction would require massive efforts from Congress and other relevant political entities and agencies.  Advocating for equal privileges, such as in property law, of same-sex couples, would take time, effort, and resources to effectively reason and persuade Filipinos, especially of the conservative kind. Further, while this case is considered as a landmark jurisprudence for the LGBTQIA+ community, much remains to be done to ensure the rights and freedom of same-sex couples.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by your access to or use of this content. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific legal concerns.