Landmark rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines at the intersection of love, family, and constitutional rights

In the Philippines — a predominantly Catholic country where marriage is enshrined as an inviolable social institution under the 1987 Constitution — the Supreme Court has been called upon to answer questions that go far beyond statutes and procedures. It has been asked, in essence, to define what love means under the law.

From nullified marriages and foreign divorces to same-sex property rights and the right to marry whom one chooses, these decisions reflect a careful balancing act between the country's deep historical and cultural values and the evolving demands of modern constitutional rights and international human rights standards.

The Landmark Decisions

G.R. No. 196359 · Tan-Andal v. Andal Promulgated May 11, 2021 · Penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen

For decades, Filipinos seeking to have their marriages declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code on grounds of psychological incapacity were required to present expert psychiatric testimony establishing a clinical diagnosis. The standard, rooted in the 1997 Molina guidelines, made such petitions costly and inaccessible to many.

In this unanimous en banc ruling, the Court declared that psychological incapacity is not a medical concept but a purely legal one — consisting of clear acts of dysfunctionality showing a spouse's inability to comply with essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. Expert psychiatric testimony is no longer mandatory; judges may rely on the totality of evidence. The ruling effectively abandoned the restrictive Molina guidelines, making it meaningfully more accessible for Filipinos in broken marriages to seek legal relief.

G.R. No. 221029 · Republic v. Manalo Promulgated April 24, 2018

Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen married to a Japanese national named Yoshino Minoro, obtained a divorce in Japan — filed by her own hand. She then sought judicial recognition of that foreign decree in the Philippines so she could remarry. The prevailing interpretation at the time held that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code — which allows a Filipino spouse to remarry after a foreign divorce — applied only if it was the foreign spouse who obtained the divorce.

The Supreme Court rejected that reading. It ruled that Article 26 applies regardless of which spouse initiated the foreign divorce. A Filipino in a mixed marriage should not be left legally bound to a dissolved union simply because they were the one who filed. The ruling does not extend to marriages between two Filipino citizens, where the prohibition on divorce remains unchanged.

G.R. No. 217910 · Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General Promulgated September 3, 2019

In 2015, openly gay Filipino lawyer Jesus Nicardo Falcis III filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code — the provisions defining marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. He argued that the definition violated LGBTQ+ Filipinos' rights to due process, equal protection, and marital privacy under the 1987 Constitution.

Historic oral arguments were held on June 19 and 26, 2018. During those arguments, Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio noted that same-sex civil unions uphold the constitutional right to freedom of association. Despite this, the Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds — Falcis lacked legal standing, having shown no direct personal injury; he had no partner and had not applied for a marriage license. Importantly, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Family Code's definition of marriage, and notably stated that the 1987 Constitution "in plain text imposes no restriction on same-sex marriage." It directed Congress, not the judiciary, as the proper body to legislate on the matter.

Second Division · Josef v. Ursua Decision dated February 5, 2026 · Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez

Two women purchased a house and lot in Quezon City during their relationship, registering it under one partner's name. After their separation, the registered owner asserted full ownership — despite having previously signed a document acknowledging that the other partner had paid approximately 50% of the purchase and renovation costs. Lower courts denied the co-ownership claim. The Supreme Court reversed — marking the first time the high court applied Article 148 of the Family Code to a same-sex couple.

The Court held that because same-sex couples cannot legally marry, they fall under Article 148, which governs property relations of cohabiting couples prohibited from marrying and requires proof of actual financial contribution to establish co-ownership. The signed acknowledgment was deemed sufficient. In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Leonen wrote: "To be different is not to be abnormal. A same-sex relationship is a normal relationship." The Court further stated that Congress must act to address the broader rights of same-sex couples, as the judiciary alone cannot resolve all related policy concerns.

What These Rulings Tell Us

These four decisions trace a clear arc. The Supreme Court of the Philippines is increasingly willing to read the law through what Justice Leonen calls "more contemporary lenses" — while remaining conscious of its constitutional limits and the country's cultural landscape.

None of these rulings has yet directly addressed whether limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is constitutional. That question — perhaps the defining one for this generation of Philippine jurisprudence — remains open. The Court, at each turn, has deferred it to the legislature.

As Justice Leonen put it at a UP College of Law forum in February 2024: "The capacity to love is a human capacity. You are not less human just because you find love in the same biological sex."

The Supreme Court cannot have the final word alone. But through each ruling, it shapes the legal and moral vocabulary through which the future of love and marriage in the Philippines will ultimately be decided.

Sources: Supreme Court E-Library · Rappler · Philippine Daily Inquirer · UPI · Library of Congress Global Legal Monitor · Philippine Law Journal · Wikipedia – Falcis III v. Civil Registrar-General