When the flame fades
Josie and Eve fell in love and lived together as a couple.
A year later, they purchased a house and lot that served as their love nest. They agreed to register the said property solely in the name of Eve to facilitate bank transactions.
Their love, however, did not stand the test of time. Soon, they went their separate ways. They agreed to sell the house and lot, and to divide the proceeds equally.
Eve executed an Acknowledgment of Third-Party Interest in Real Property allegedly acknowledging Josie’s co-ownership over the subject property. It expressly recognized that Josie financed and paid 50 percent of the expenses in the acquisition and renovation of the subject property.
In a sudden twist of events, Eve changed her mind and refused to sell the property. She also refused to recognize Josie as co-owner of the property and give her share in the property. She asserted exclusive ownership over the property.
Eve asserted that the Acknowledgment stated that Josie’s interest over the property was subject to the determination of the actual percentage of interest based on records and documents.
However, records were bereft of proof that Josie contributed to the acquisition of the subject property.
Josie then filed a Complaint for partition of real estate and damages against Eve.
Q: What is a complaint for partition?
A: Partition is the separation and division of a thing held in common among the co-owners or co-heirs. Its objective is to designate to each party their respective shares and their portion of the property owned in common.
Co-ownership exists when the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. By the nature of co-ownership, a co-owner cannot point to any specific portion of the property owned in common as their own because their share in it remains intangible and ideal.
Q: Are the house and lot co-owned?
A: Yes, Josie is entitled to 50 percent share of the subject property. First, there is already an acknowledgment on the part of Eve that Josie had financed and paid for about 50 percent of the expenses in the acquisition, construction, and improvement of the subject property.
Second, taking the entirety of the Acknowledgment, the proviso “subject to the determination of the actual percentage of the aforesaid interest based on records and documents” simply means that should Josie’s actual share exceed the 50 percent share she possesses, the excess must be proven by records and documents,
Finally, Eve acknowledged Josie’s share to be determined at 50 percent of the subject property’s market value in case she predeceased respondent.
Simply stated, the 50 percent share of the subject property is the minimum share that Eve wanted to acknowledge. Thus, given the foregoing, Eve is a co-owner of the subject property and is entitled to 50 percent share of the said property.
Q: What is the property regime that governs same sex couple?
A: Considering that petitioner and respondent have the same sex when they cohabited, they are not capacitated to marry each other, and thus, Article 148 governs their property relations.
Under Article 148 of the Family Code, the properties acquired during cohabitation can be considered the common property of petitioner and respondent if: (1) 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. Thus, if the actual contribution of a party is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and there can be no presumption of equal shares.
Here, the Acknowledgment signed by respondent shows the actual contribution of petitioner. Respondent recognized that petitioner is entitled to 50 percent share of the subject property.
Applying the doctrine of estoppel which is based on public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, Eve is now estopped to question the contribution of Josie in the acquisition 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 Acknowledgement executed by respondent, Josie is a co-owner to the extent of 50 percent share of the subject property.
Considering that there is co-ownership between Josie and Eve, then each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as her share is concerned. Having rightful interest over the subject property, Josie has the right to demand the division of the subject property. (Source: Josef vs. Ursua, G.R. No. 267469, Feb. 5, 2025, [J. Lopez, J. Second Division])
The author is Dean, College of Law at Lyceum of the Philippines University; Member of Civil Law Department, Philippine Judicial Academy
