When Love and Property Collide: Re-defining the Application of Article 148 of the Family Code on Co-ownership for Same-sex couples.
Immanuel Christian V. Fontanilla
Atty. Lea Mona P. Chu
Atty. Rhenelle Mae O. Operario
MARCH 2026
A glance at social media would reveal that a lot of Filipino celebrities and influencers openly share their current living arrangements with their partners.
This exponential increase is brought about by the significant shift in how society views individuals living together, from being heavily ostracized to gradually accepted as a normal living
arrangement.
This constantly evolving perspective not only applies to heterosexual couples but also to same-sex couples who choose to share a home. In a country where same-sex marriage is yet to be legally recognized, cohabitation becomes the most viable option for these couples to start building their life together.
Moreover, it can also be stated that cohabitation is the “next stage” to a relationship, acting as a sort of “preview” of how their married life will be. Why? Because when two individuals live together, you get to see your partner in a whole different light. You get to see how they live their life – you experience their habits, mannerisms, and other aspects of their life, only you get to see once you start sharing the same space.
This arrangement is often appealing because it enables couples to build a shared routine together. Imagine this scenario:
On weekdays, you wake up beside your partner, share a quick breakfast, and prepare to go about your day. You drop your partner off at his/her office before heading to work yourself. After an exhausting day at work, you return home, take a little breather, go through your nightly routine, and then lie down in bed together until you both eventually fall asleep.
On weekends, you wake up a little later than usual, eat breakfast, and divide the household chores. Further into the day, you decide whether you’ll stay at home or go out – do a quick grocery run, meet up with friends, or even go on a date. When evening comes, you return home, lounge on the sofa, watch movies, or play games until you both head to bed together.
Whether heterosexual or of the same sex, this everyday routine is what makes cohabitation very appealing. It creates a sense of partnership and stability, which strengthens their relationship over time.
These couples also celebrate several milestones together, such as purchasing their first house, acquiring their first car, travelling to another country, or buying their first luxury item, among others.
All couples strive to spend a lifetime together; however, we must not forget that the human mind is ever-changing, and as such, circumstances, feelings, and priorities may change over time.
In the event of an inevitable breakup, a question arises: How will the acquired properties be distributed between them? The answer is not always as clear-cut as it seems. Every couple has its own personal circumstances that should be considered to determine how the distribution shall be made.
If the breakup is amicable or consensual, the answer is simple: The couple retains ownership of the properties acquired, or they would sell the same. On the other hand, when the relationship ends on hostile terms, when old promises are broken, trust is compromised, and disagreements arise over the properties, how do you determine the extent to which an individual is entitled to his or her share?
To approach this matter lightly, we have this Filipino term colloquially called “KKB” or “kanya-kanyang bayad”, which essentially means: you pay for what you buy/order.
To illustrate this matter more clearly, let us provide you with an example:
Andromeda and Robin, both females, were high school sweethearts. After graduating from college and securing stable employment, they decided to live together in a condominium in BGC. They each contributed fifty percent (50%) of the down payment needed to move in.
For the first few years, their contributions were split evenly until Andromeda got promoted and received a significant increase in salary; thus, they agreed that Andromeda would shoulder seventy percent (70%) of the monthly amortization while Robin shoulders thirty-percent (30%) plus their utilities. Once Robin got promoted and received a significant increase in salary, they decided to buy a Toyota Fortuner, where Robin contributed eighty percent (80%) while Andromeda contributed twenty percent (20%).
Several years passed, and Andromeda and Robin were able to place these properties under the names of Andromeda for the Condominium and Robin for the Toyota Fortuner.
Upon reaching their late forties, they argued frequently and eventually fell out of love, citing irreconcilable differences, ultimately leading to their break-up.
As their break-up was mutual, they were at a loss on how they would split the two (2) properties they obtained during their youth. Thus, they consulted with their lawyer friend, who informed them that they were co-owners whose respective shares are as follows:
This constantly evolving perspective not only applies to heterosexual couples but also to same-sex couples who choose to share a home. In a country where same-sex marriage is yet to be legally recognized, cohabitation becomes the most viable option for these couples to start building their life together.
Moreover, it can also be stated that cohabitation is the “next stage” to a relationship, acting as a sort of “preview” of how their married life will be. Why? Because when two individuals live together, you get to see your partner in a whole different light. You get to see how they live their life – you experience their habits, mannerisms, and other aspects of their life, only you get to see once you start sharing the same space.
This arrangement is often appealing because it enables couples to build a shared routine together. Imagine this scenario:
On weekdays, you wake up beside your partner, share a quick breakfast, and prepare to go about your day. You drop your partner off at his/her office before heading to work yourself. After an exhausting day at work, you return home, take a little breather, go through your nightly routine, and then lie down in bed together until you both eventually fall asleep.
On weekends, you wake up a little later than usual, eat breakfast, and divide the household chores. Further into the day, you decide whether you’ll stay at home or go out – do a quick grocery run, meet up with friends, or even go on a date. When evening comes, you return home, lounge on the sofa, watch movies, or play games until you both head to bed together.
Whether heterosexual or of the same sex, this everyday routine is what makes cohabitation very appealing. It creates a sense of partnership and stability, which strengthens their relationship over time.
These couples also celebrate several milestones together, such as purchasing their first house, acquiring their first car, travelling to another country, or buying their first luxury item, among others.
All couples strive to spend a lifetime together; however, we must not forget that the human mind is ever-changing, and as such, circumstances, feelings, and priorities may change over time.
In the event of an inevitable breakup, a question arises: How will the acquired properties be distributed between them? The answer is not always as clear-cut as it seems. Every couple has its own personal circumstances that should be considered to determine how the distribution shall be made.
If the breakup is amicable or consensual, the answer is simple: The couple retains ownership of the properties acquired, or they would sell the same. On the other hand, when the relationship ends on hostile terms, when old promises are broken, trust is compromised, and disagreements arise over the properties, how do you determine the extent to which an individual is entitled to his or her share?
To approach this matter lightly, we have this Filipino term colloquially called “KKB” or “kanya-kanyang bayad”, which essentially means: you pay for what you buy/order.
To illustrate this matter more clearly, let us provide you with an example:
Andromeda and Robin, both females, were high school sweethearts. After graduating from college and securing stable employment, they decided to live together in a condominium in BGC. They each contributed fifty percent (50%) of the down payment needed to move in.
For the first few years, their contributions were split evenly until Andromeda got promoted and received a significant increase in salary; thus, they agreed that Andromeda would shoulder seventy percent (70%) of the monthly amortization while Robin shoulders thirty-percent (30%) plus their utilities. Once Robin got promoted and received a significant increase in salary, they decided to buy a Toyota Fortuner, where Robin contributed eighty percent (80%) while Andromeda contributed twenty percent (20%).
Several years passed, and Andromeda and Robin were able to place these properties under the names of Andromeda for the Condominium and Robin for the Toyota Fortuner.
Upon reaching their late forties, they argued frequently and eventually fell out of love, citing irreconcilable differences, ultimately leading to their break-up.
As their break-up was mutual, they were at a loss on how they would split the two (2) properties they obtained during their youth. Thus, they consulted with their lawyer friend, who informed them that they were co-owners whose respective shares are as follows:
| Owner | Respective Share |
|---|---|
| Andromeda | Condominium: 70% |
| Toyota Fortuner: 20% | |
| Robin | Condominium: 30% |
| Toyota Fortuner: 80% |
The basis used in answering their query lies in Article 148 of the Family Code.
Article 148 of the Family Code is applied in cases of cohabitation wherein the couple has legal impediments
that prevent them from contracting marriage. In the case of same-sex couples, the legal impediment is that there is still no law passed recognizing marriage of the same sex.
“Article 148:1 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 evidence of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage.If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage.If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Simply stated, under this instance, the share of either party is determined by his or her actual contribution, commensurate with what he or she has provided. If their
contribution cannot be determined, the presumption is that their shares shall be equal.
However, if the legal impediment is due to a subsisting marriage, the respective share of either party shall automatically form part of the property for the existing marriage.
It has been consistently held in jurisprudence that the term “capacitated to marry” under Article 147 of the Family Code pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage, or “marriage between a man and a woman.” 2
Under strict interpretations of the law, the legal capacity is applied only to heterosexual couples, without impediments (Article 147 of the Family Code) or with legal impediments (Article 148 of the Family Code).
Fortunately, one of the most significant pronouncements in recent jurisprudence is the landmark case of Jennifer C. Josef vs. Evalyn G. Ursua 3, where a more liberal interpretation of Article 148 of the Family Code was applied by Justice Lopez in his decision.
Prior to this case, the interpretation of the word “legal capacity” was understood as the “marriage between a man and a woman”. Consequently, the laws on co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code are inapplicable for same-sex couples who cohabited and subsequently purchased properties.
Such interpretation was clarified and amended by Justice Lopez and held, to quote: “Considering the petitioner and respondent have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other, thus Article 148 governs their property relations.”
In other words, the interpretation of the phrase legal impediment as provided under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code is not limited to the impediment existing between a man and a woman; it necessarily includes situations where the parties cannot legally marry due to specific instances, such as in the case of same-sex couples.
While this decision does not constitute a groundbreaking shift for cohabitating same-sex couples, such a pronouncement, no matter how modest, represents a meaningful step towards a better and brighter future not only for these individuals but also to pave the way for a more liberal approach in the interpretation and application of outdated laws and precedents.
Ultimately, it must be remembered that while the Philippine Courts hold established precedents in high regard, the law must not remain adrift in the face of a continually evolving society. As societal norms continue to shift, coupled with the fact that diverse forms of relationships become more pronounced, our laws must always be kept abreast to uphold equality and to protect the rights and interests of the very populace it has sworn to serve and protect.
However, if the legal impediment is due to a subsisting marriage, the respective share of either party shall automatically form part of the property for the existing marriage.
It has been consistently held in jurisprudence that the term “capacitated to marry” under Article 147 of the Family Code pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage, or “marriage between a man and a woman.” 2
Under strict interpretations of the law, the legal capacity is applied only to heterosexual couples, without impediments (Article 147 of the Family Code) or with legal impediments (Article 148 of the Family Code).
Fortunately, one of the most significant pronouncements in recent jurisprudence is the landmark case of Jennifer C. Josef vs. Evalyn G. Ursua 3, where a more liberal interpretation of Article 148 of the Family Code was applied by Justice Lopez in his decision.
Prior to this case, the interpretation of the word “legal capacity” was understood as the “marriage between a man and a woman”. Consequently, the laws on co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code are inapplicable for same-sex couples who cohabited and subsequently purchased properties.
Such interpretation was clarified and amended by Justice Lopez and held, to quote: “Considering the petitioner and respondent have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other, thus Article 148 governs their property relations.”
In other words, the interpretation of the phrase legal impediment as provided under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code is not limited to the impediment existing between a man and a woman; it necessarily includes situations where the parties cannot legally marry due to specific instances, such as in the case of same-sex couples.
While this decision does not constitute a groundbreaking shift for cohabitating same-sex couples, such a pronouncement, no matter how modest, represents a meaningful step towards a better and brighter future not only for these individuals but also to pave the way for a more liberal approach in the interpretation and application of outdated laws and precedents.
Ultimately, it must be remembered that while the Philippine Courts hold established precedents in high regard, the law must not remain adrift in the face of a continually evolving society. As societal norms continue to shift, coupled with the fact that diverse forms of relationships become more pronounced, our laws must always be kept abreast to uphold equality and to protect the rights and interests of the very populace it has sworn to serve and protect.
DISCLAIMER: The scenario presented is entirely fictional and is not based on real persons, events, or cases. Any resemblance or connection, whether direct or indirect, to actual persons, events, or cases is purely coincidental.
FOOTNOTES
*The views and opinions expressed are based on applicable laws, constitutional provisions, and/or jurisprudence in force at the time of writing, and do not constitute legal advice or an official stance on any political matter. Subsequent legal or factual developments may affect the relevance or applicability of the views and opinions herein expressed.