The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has welcomed the recent Supreme Court (SC) decision which recognized co-ownership of property in same-sex cohabitation provided they have proof of their contributions.

"This SC decision affirms that diverse forms of intimate relationships exist and cannot be rendered legally invisible," the CHR said in a statement.

It also said: "By recognizing that same-sex partners may be considered co-owners under Article 148 of the Family Code, the Court acknowledges lived realities often disregarded in formal legal discourse and moves away from treating same-sex partners as legal strangers."

It added that the decision strengthens the visibility of LGBTQIA relationships, and gives them fuller legal protection as a step towards substantive equality.

"The ruling aligns with constitutional guarantees of equal protection and the Philippines’ obligations under international human rights law. Recognizing property relations affirms the dignity, agency, and family life of LGBTQIA individuals and upholds the State’s duty to prevent discrimination and recognize the equal dignity of all, regardless of SOGIE," the CHR stressed.

In line with the SC’s landmark ruling, the CHR called for sustained legislative and policy action to close the remaining protection gaps.

"Moving from visibility to full equality requires comprehensive reform grounded in the Constitution’s promise of equal protection of the laws," the CHR pointed out.

In its decision, the SC ruled that property acquired during same-sex cohabitation is presumed jointly owned, and Article 148 of the Family code applies to couples who are not permitted to marry like same-sex couples.

The SC pointed out that only properties obtained through actual contribution are considered common property.

It said that the signed acknowledgement, where one partner admitted that the other paid about half of the property costs, was a binding admission and sufficient proof of actual contribution, and established co-ownership.

The SC emphasized that, without a law recognizing same-sex marriage, Congress and other government branches must address same-sex couples’ rights, as courts alone cannot resolve all related policy concerns.

It said: “This Court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples. With the political, moral, and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments especially the Congress must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms.”

It also said: “The process of legislation exposes the experiences of homosexuals who have been oppressed, ensuring that they are understood by those who stand with the majority. Mostly, public reason needs to be first shaped through the crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat.”