Supreme Court Same-Sex Property Ruling: What It Means

The complainant claims unauthorized publication of sexual orientation and personal info.

The landmark Supreme Court ruling recognizing same-sex relationships in property ownership may have actually set the country back further due to possible potential data privacy violations.

A Filipina filed a complaint before a United Nations office in Manila, accusing the Philippine government of gender-based discrimination, according to a news report by the human rights-focused outlet Bulatlat.

The Supreme Court issued a decision on February 5 that recognized co-ownership of property in same-sex relationships. An ex-couple of two women contested ownership of a house and lot that they had purchased jointly, but the title was registered under only one of the ex-partners.

Because no Philippine laws explicitly acknowledge same-sex relationships, the Court deferred to Article 148 of the Family Code, which governs property relations for couples who live together but cannot legally marry.

The provision recognizes co-ownership based on actual financial contributions, which the court ruled were present in this case.

Bulatlat reported that the UN complainant—the party in the SC case whose name was listed as the owner of the property—took issue with her sexual orientation, home address, and full name being published without her knowledge or consent.

Despite the landmark nature of the case, experts caution against disclosure of someone else’s sexual orientation since it could open a person to discrimination and violence—especially in conservative cultures.

“A litigant who discloses sensitive personal information, including her sexual orientation, in pleadings to either seek judicial relief or defend herself in a suit does not thereby consent to the public dissemination of that information by the court itself,” Bulatlat quoted from the complaint.

The UN complaint also pointed out that Article 148 is historically applied to adulterous relationships, casting a negative bias toward same-sex relationships since they are seemingly grouped in the same legal category as illicit relationships instead of recognizing them as legitimate unions.

A victory for same-sex property rights turns into a data nightmare. A landmark SC property ruling faces a severe UN complaint over the forced publication of a litigant’s sexual orientation and personal data.

radar Recommends

Protecting sensitive data in corporate and legal filings

If your legal counsel is representing a client in a sensitive civil or property dispute where the disclosure of sexual orientation, medical history, or gender identity could lead to societal discrimination, do not wait for the court to act. File an explicit Motion to De-identify or redact personal identifiers at the very beginning of the pleading phase, citing international anti-discrimination guidelines.

Under current data privacy regulations, corporate human resource departments must treat an employee's sexual orientation and personal tracking data as highly sensitive personal information (SPI). Companies should fully encrypt the corporate networks and heavily restrict access to employee files to shield their firms from massive data liability lawsuits.

For same-sex couples or unmarried business partners jointly investing in commercial real estate or horizontal residential projects during the current property cycle, avoid relying on messy back-end family code litigations. Execute clear, formalized joint venture agreements or co-ownership deeds right at the point of purchase.