The case of Jennifer C. Josef vs. Evelyn G. Ursua, G.R. No.267469 (05 February 2025) provides important clarity for property disputes involving unmarried and same-sex partners. In a Decision promulgated in 2025 but was published only in 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed that co-ownership may arise from acknowledged financial contribution even when the property is registered in only one partner’s name.
The Facts
Jennifer C. Josef (Josef) and Evelyn G. Ursua (Ursua), a same-sex couple, began living together in 2005. In 2006, they purchased a house and lot in Quezon City. The property, however, was registered solely in Ursua’s name, purportedly to facilitate bank transactions.
After their separation, the parties agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. Ursua subsequently executed an Acknowledgment of Third-Party Interest, expressly stating that Josef financed and paid 50% of the expenses for the acquisition and renovation of the property.
Despite this written acknowledgment, Ursua later refused to sell the property and denied Josef’s alleged co-ownership.
Josef annotated an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on the title and filed a Complaint for Partition of Real Estate with Damages.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Josef failed to sufficiently prove co-ownership apart from the Acknowledgment. Josef was also not able to prove how much she contributed to fund the purchase of the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but deleted the damages awarded to Ursua.
Josef elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Issue
Whether the Acknowledgment executed by Ursua sufficiently established co-ownership, thereby entitling Josef to a 50% share in the property and the right to demand partition.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition.
The Supreme Court highlighted that an action for partition is a two-stage process: (i) determination of co-ownership; and (ii) segregation and conveyance of respective shares.
Thus, the threshold question was whether co-ownership existed. Ursua admitted signing the Acknowledgment, which explicitly recognized Josef’s 50% financial contribution to the acquisition and improvement of the property. The Supreme Court held that this written admission constituted competent and sufficient evidence of co-ownership.
Even assuming arguendo that the Acknowledgment contained ambiguities such as whether there was a need for Josef to prove her financial contribution, such ambiguities must be interpreted against Ursua who drafted and executed the document, and in favor of Josef, for whose benefit it was made.
Also, because same-sex couples are not legally capacitated to marry, Article 147 of the Family Code does not apply. Instead, Article 148 governs. Under Article 148, properties acquired through the parties’ actual joint contribution are owned in common and once contribution is proven, shares are presumed equal.
The Supreme Court ruled that Josef’s proven contribution established co-ownership under Article 148. Having expressly acknowledged Josef’s contribution, Ursua was estopped from later denying the existence of co-ownership. The case was remanded to the trial court for partition proceedings.
This case appears to be the first time that the Supreme Court has declared a same-sex relationship as falling under the coverage of Article 148 of the Family Code, which was only previously interpreted in the context of a heterosexual relationship. It affirms that ownership is determined not merely by title registration but by actual contribution, supported by competent evidence.
If you need legal advice on issues relating to ownership of properties with your partner or legal spouse, please contact the writer through email de.pedron@cruzmarcelo.com.