Probably inspired by his famous movie line, “Mahal kita, maging sino ka man”, topnotcher senator Robin Padilla filed Senate Bill No. 449 entitled “Institutionalizing Civil Unions of Same Sex Couples, Establishing their Rights and Obligations, and for Other Purposes. In the bill’s Explanatory Note, Senator Padilla states: “This representation firmly believes it is high time that the Philippines provides equal rights and recognition for couples of the same sex with no prejudice as to sexual relationships are protected and recognized and given access to basic social protection and security. Providing equal rights and privileges for same-sex couples will in no way diminish or trample on the rights granted to married couples.”
In this Article, I will discuss some of the rights granted to same-sex couples in the said bill in contrast to their rights under the existing laws.
Successional Right. One of the rights that is provided under SB No. 449 is that a same sex partner will be considered as a compulsory heir. Under the Civil Code, if a person dies without a will, his estate or the properties he left will be inherited by his compulsory heirs thru intestate succession. The Civil Code identifies certain relatives who are deemed compulsory heirs and intestate heirs. They refer to relatives that become heirs by virtue of compulsory succession or intestate succession, as the case may be, by operation of law. (G.R. 232579, September 08, 2020) Article 887 of said code states that the following are compulsory heirs: (1) Legitimate children and descendants; (2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants; (3) The widow or widower; (4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction; and (5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
Clearly, under our present laws on succession, a same sex partner, no matter how long their relationship or cohabitation may be, is just considered a friend or an acquaintance. Thus, absence of a will, the former, not being a compulsory heir, has no right whatsoever in the estate or properties left by the deceased partner.
Property Regime. Property regime is the set of rules that governs the property relations during the course of a marriage. It may be agreed upon by the parties before marriage (pre-nuptial agreement), or determined by law in default of such agreement. In the absence of a prenuptial agreement, either the Civil Code or the Family Code shall apply depending whether the marriage was celebrated before or after August 3, 1988 – the effectivity of the Family Code.
If a marriage was solemnized before August 3, 1988 and no prenup was made, as stated in the Civil Code, the property regime that governs is the Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG). CPG means that the couple shall retain exclusive ownership of the properties they already own at the time of their marriage but shall put in a common fund (1) the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties; and (2) those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance. Now, if a marriage was solemnized after August 3, 1988, the property regime that shall govern is the Absolute Community Property which simply means what is yours is mine and what is mine is yours, subject to certain exceptions provided by law.
In case of common-law spouses, Article 147 and Article 148 of the Family Code shall govern. However, both articles only connote common-law relationship of a man and a woman. Article 147 states: “When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. A party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. It bears emphasis that the last sentence of Article 147 recognizes the efforts of the parties in caring and maintaining the family and the house hold.
When it comes to same sex partners, they shall be governed by laws on co-ownership. They are entitled only to the portion they actually contributed. So, in the instance that only one of them was working, and the other was entrusted with the care and maintenance of the household, if they decide to part ways, even after years of living together, the latter shall be left with nothing.
Adoption. Under our present laws on adoption, a married couple or a single person is allowed to adopt a child. However, there is no provision therein that allows two individuals, not being married, to adopt a child jointly. Thus, in cases of same sex couple, only one of them may adopt a child and only one of them may be deemed as the adoptive parent. The other partner, in the eyes of the law, shall be considered as a total stranger and has no right over the adopted child.
Other notable benefits and protections accorded to couples of same sex civil union under Senate Bill No. 449 are as follows: (1) Labor standards benefits and privileges accorded to employees based on marital status; (2) Visitation Rights in Detention Facilities; (3) Decision Making in Burial Arrangements; (4) Benefits under tax laws relating to marital status; (5) Coverage of laws relating to immunity from being compelled to testify against the other and bound by the marital communication privilege; and (6) Insurable interest over their respective partners and the benefits relating to insurance, health and pension provided to married couples.