The new Philippine Supreme Court ruling centres on a lesbian couple, Jennifer Josef and Evalyn Ursua, who bought a house together in Quezon City in 2006, a year after they started living together. For practical reasons, the home was put in Ursua’s name to make dealing with banks and paperwork easier.
What you’ll learn in this article
- What the Philippine Supreme Court actually decided about Same-Sex rights related to property.
- How a lesbian couple’s house dispute sparked the landmark ruling.
- What this means (and doesn’t mean) for queer rights in the Philippines.
A house, a breakup and a breakthrough
The new Philippine Supreme Court ruling centres on a lesbian couple, Jennifer Josef and Evalyn Ursua, who bought a house together in Quezon City in 2006, a year after they started living together. For practical reasons, the home was put in Ursua’s name to make dealing with banks and paperwork easier.
When the relationship ended, they agreed to sell and split the proceeds – but that deal fell apart, and Josef went to court claiming co‑ownership based on her financial contribution to buying and renovating the house. Lower courts threw her case out, treating the title as decisive, but the Supreme Court stepped in and reversed those decisions in a 14‑page ruling released publicly in February.
In one key passage, the Court said that where there is co‑ownership, “each co‑owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common,” confirming Josef’s right to claim her share.
“In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal.” – Philippine Supreme Court, on co‑owning.
The legal hook: Article 148
Because the Philippines only recognises marriage between a man and a woman, same-sex partners have long existed in a legal grey zone when it comes to property, inheritance and family rights. Property rules in the Family Code hinge on two key provisions: Article 147, which covers couples who can legally marry, and Article 148, which applies to those who cannot, including adulterous or otherwise prohibited relationships.
The Supreme Court has now confirmed that Article 148 also covers same-sex couples who live together, as they are barred from marrying under current law. Under Article 148, partners are co‑owners of property they acquire during the relationship if they can show actual financial contribution, such as paying purchase costs, renovations or mortgage instalments.
In Josef and Ursua’s case, the Court treated a signed acknowledgment by Ursua – recognising that Josef had paid around half the price and renovation costs – as enough proof to establish co‑ownership. That allowed the justices to treat the house as jointly owned, even though only one name appeared on the title.
A first for queer couples – with limits
Court spokesperson Camille Ting told the BBC this is the first time Article 148 has been used in a case involving same-sex property ownership. Human Rights Watch has described the judgment as a “watershed moment” for queer couples in the country, noting that it finally gives same-sex partners a clear legal path to assert co‑ownership when they can prove they contributed.
Associate Justice Amy Lazaro Javier highlighted the “glaring yet unjustified difference” in how heterosexual and same-sex couples have been treated, saying the law must not make queer relationships “legally invisible” when it comes to property rights.
The law should not render “legitimate intimate relationships legally invisible.” — Justice Amy Lazaro Javier.
Still, the Court was clear that this is not a back‑door recognition of same-sex marriage. Marriage equality remains off the books, and many other rights – like adoption as a couple or spousal benefits – are still unavailable.
The decision also sets an evidentiary bar: partners will need to show proof that they paid towards the property, whether through documents, acknowledgments or financial records. In a society where many queer couples keep finances informal or hidden because of stigma, that may still be a hurdle.
Why it matters beyond the courtroom
The Philippines is a heavily Catholic nation where support for same-sex civil unions was around 22 per cent in a 2018 survey by Social Weather Stations, and there is no national anti‑discrimination law protecting LGBTQ+ people. Against that backdrop, this ruling is symbolically powerful as well as practical.
Advocacy groups have welcomed it as a step toward treating queer couples as real economic partners, not legal strangers, and as a signal to Congress to finally tackle broader reforms. The Supreme Court itself said lawmakers and the government must address same-sex couples’ rights because courts alone cannot resolve all policy issues.
