As declared by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, in interpreting our laws, we should be mindful of the reality that our freedoms should be individually and socially meaningful. This was his closing statement in his concurring opinion in the recent case (G.R. No. 267469) where the Highest Court ruled that the provision of Article 148 of the Family Code applies to same sex relationship.
The said case pertains to a same sex couple, let’s just call them as partner “A” and partner “B”, who had lived together since 2005. In 2006, they bought a residential house which is the subject property in the case. Partner “A” contended that they both contributed to the purchase and renovation expenses of the house, however, they decided that the title thereof be put in the name of Partner “B” for convenience. In 2008, partner “B” signed an acknowledgment where she recognized that partner “A” indeed contributed half of the purchase and renovation expenses.
After some years of being together, the two separated and decided to sell the house and split the proceeds equally. However, partner “B” suddenly refused to sell the house and denied partner “A”’s claim of ownership. Hence, the instant case.
In resolving the issue at hand, the Supreme Court, thru Associate Justice Lopez, gave credence to the Acknowledgement which established the co-ownership between partners “A” and “B”. Its genuineness and due execution was established by partner “B”’s admission that she signed the said document.
In addition to that, it was also observed that Article 148 of the Family Code finds applicability to the case as the same is also applicable to same sex couples.
Article 148 of the Family Code reads: “In cases not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contribution and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidence of credit.xxx”
Having been referred in Article 148, a reading of Article 147 of the Family Code is necessary, to wit: Art. 147. When a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage o under a void 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 applying the abovementioned provision in the said case, the Supreme Court explained: “Notably the tern “capacitated to marry each other” under Article 147 of the Family Code pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage. The Family Code defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Considering that partners “A” and “B” have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other, and thus, Article 148 governs their property relations.
As further explained by Justice Leonen, in his concurring opinion, “from the plain text of the law, it is clear that Article 148 refers to any kind of cohabitation under than those falling under Article 147. While Article 147 mentions gender-specific parties, the parties perceived in Article 148 is not qualified by any gender. As a result, Article 148 may also govern the property relation of same-sex couples who cohabitate. Article 148 of the Family Code governs the property relations of parties who are legally incapacitated to marry. Given that our current law on marriage do not capacitate same-sex couples to marry, they too are considered incapacitated to marry. Thus, Article 148 is applicable to them. Just to equip, Justice Leonen, was emphatic in his introductory that “Our laws should be read from more contemporary lenses. We must bear in mind how the lived realities of many couples in the Philippines are now far from heteronormative standards.
Now, in settling the controversy at bar, the High Court held that under Article 148 of the Family Code, the properties acquired during the cohabitation can be considered the common property of partners “A” and “B” if: these were acquired during their cohabitation; and (2) there is evidence that the properties were acquired through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry. Such contributions and corresponding shares of the parties are prima facie presumed to be equal. However, for this presumption to arise, proof of actual contribution is required.
In the case, the Acknowledgment signed by partner “B” shows the actual contribution of partner “A”. Partner “B” recognized that partner “A” is entitled to half of the subject property. Having admitted the actual contribution of petitioner, their corresponding shares are prima facie presumed equal. Thus, with Article 148 of the Family Code and the Acknowledgment executed by respondent, petitioner is a co-owner to the extent of half the subject property.