SC Ruling: A Crack in the Wall for Same-Sex Couple Rights

Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez,

SC Ruling: A Crack in the Wall for Same-Sex Couple Rights

By Bing Jabadan – TheNATIONWEEK.com | February 11, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – In a nation where the legalization of same-sex marriage remains a distant dream, overshadowed by the powerful influence of the Catholic Church, the Supreme Court (SC) has delivered a landmark decision offering a glimmer of hope for LGBTQ+ rights.

The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, recognizes the property rights of same-sex couples, establishing a crucial legal precedent that could pave the way for broader recognition.

The case, a dispute between two women who had built a life together, centered on a Quezon City home purchased jointly but registered solely in one partner’s name.

When the relationship dissolved, a battle over ownership ensued, highlighting the legal vulnerabilities faced by same-sex couples in the Philippines.

Lower courts dismissed the case, but the SC overturned the rulings, clarifying that Article 148 of the Family Code, rather than Article 147, governs the property relations of same-sex couples.

While Article 147 presumes joint ownership for legally married couples, Article 148 requires proof of actual contribution for those “incapacitated to marry each other.”

In this case, the Court deemed a signed acknowledgment from one partner admitting the other’s contribution to the property’s costs as sufficient evidence of co-ownership.

“With Article 148 of the Family Code and the acknowledgment executed by the respondent, the petitioner is a co-owner to the extent of a 50% share of the subject property,” the decision stated, offering a tangible victory for the aggrieved partner and setting a precedent for future cases.

Call for Legislative Action

Beyond the immediate implications of the ruling, the high court issued a powerful call to the legislative and executive branches, urging them to address the broader rights of same-sex couples.

It acknowledged that judicial decisions alone cannot resolve all the policy concerns surrounding same-sex relationships, emphasizing the need for comprehensive legal reforms.

“This Court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” the decision stated.

“Political departments, especially Congress, must be involved to quest for solutions that balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms.”

Voices of Support from the Bench

The significance of the ruling was further underscored by concurring opinions from the justices.

Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier argued that Article 148 should be interpreted broadly enough to encompass same-sex cohabitation, challenging the “unjustified difference in the treatment of homosexual couples vis-à-vis their heterosexual counterparts.”

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen went further, asserting that romantic relationships between same-sex couples are not abnormal and deserve the same legal protection as other relationships, particularly in matters of property.

“A same-sex relationship is a normal relationship that must be covered by the article,” Leonen said, advocating for a more inclusive and equitable legal framework.

A Step Forward, But a Long Road Ahead

The landmark decision represents a significant step forward in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in the Philippines, providing a crucial legal framework for protecting the property rights of same-sex couples.

However, the Court’s call for legislative action highlights the ongoing need for comprehensive legal reforms to ensure full equality and recognition for same-sex relationships in the country.

While the legalization of same-sex marriage may remain a distant prospect, the ruling offers a tangible victory and a renewed sense of hope for a more inclusive future.

It is a crack in the wall, a legal foothold that advocates can use to push for further progress and ultimately achieve full equality for all Filipinos, regardless of their sexual orientation.

(Photo courtesy: SC Communications Office)