{"id":46333,"date":"2026-09-02T16:50:58","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T15:50:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crs-advogados.com\/i-was-the-one-who-paid-for-the-house-so-its-all-mine-isnt-it-the-supreme-court-says-no\/"},"modified":"2026-09-02T17:32:43","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T16:32:43","slug":"i-was-the-one-who-paid-for-the-house-so-its-all-mine-isnt-it-the-supreme-court-says-no","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crs-advogados.com\/en\/i-was-the-one-who-paid-for-the-house-so-its-all-mine-isnt-it-the-supreme-court-says-no\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cI was the one who paid for the house, so it\u2019s all mine, isn\u2019t it?\u201d The Supreme Court says no."},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA couple in a civil partnership decide to buy a house, with both named as buyers on the deed. Years later, the relationship ends and, when it comes to dividing their assets, a dispute arises: one of them claims to have paid the deposit, the mortgage repayments and even the cost of the building work on the property all on their own.

The question seems obvious: if I was the one who paid for everything, shouldn\u2019t I be the sole owner of the house?<\/strong> It was this question that reached the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice in a case concerning the division of jointly owned property, decided by the Judgment of 7 July 2026, handed down in Case No. 6897\/23.9T8VNG.P1.S1. And the Supreme Court\u2019s answer is clear: not necessarily!<\/strong>

When two people are listed as purchasers in the deed for a property, the fact that only one of them paid the purchase price does not, in itself, make that person the sole owner.

Ownership is transferred by the mere effect of the contract: what determines who acquires the property are the contractual declarations made in the deed, not who paid the money. The land registry publicises this acquisition and gives rise to a presumption that the right belongs to the person named therein. Thus, if both are listed in the deed as purchasers, ownership of the property is, unless otherwise stated in the title, attributed to both in equal shares.

As such, it is essential to distinguish between two issues which, although related, are not legally equivalent: who is the owner and who bore the financial cost of the purchase.

Payment of the purchase price may have legal consequences between the purchasers, namely a claim in favour of the party who bore a greater share of the cost than was due. This right is not, however, automatic; it is necessary to establish the legal basis and demonstrate the facts supporting it (existing agreements, proof of payments). This means that the fact that one of the purchasers bore a larger share \u2013 or even the entirety \u2013 of the financial burden does not, in itself, alter the ownership of the property.

However, once co-ownership has been recognised, the question then arises as to the proportion of the shares. In the absence of any indication to the contrary in the title deed, the shares of the co-owners are presumed to be equal, in accordance with Article 1403(2) of the Civil Code. Thus, if one of the parties claims, on the contrary, that there is no co-ownership and that they are the sole owner, as we have already seen, the discussion is a prior one: the issue is not whether the share is 50 per cent or 30 per cent, but rather who holds the right. And it was precisely this distinction that the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) made in this specific case.

Consider, regarding the contents of the home, the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice. In this case, the law assumes that, in cases of doubt, the furniture belongs to both parties; however, it was proven that only one of them had purchased it, and that person was deemed to be its sole owner. The difference does not lie in the money but continues to lie in the title. However, in the case of movable property, there is no deed or register establishing who purchased it; consequently, the presumption that it belongs to both parties may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.

The Judgment in question is of particular importance because property relations between members of a civil partnership are not automatically equated with those between spouses; there is no property regime in a civil partnership similar to the matrimonial property regime, and each party retains their own assets and income.

This Judgement thus sends a simple yet legally significant message: paying for something is not the same as owning it; consequently, ownership of a property is not determined by who bore the financial cost of its purchase, but rather by the legal title underpinning the acquisition.<\/strong>

Therefore, before buying a property jointly \u2013 with a partner, family member, friend or investor \u2013 it is essential to define who is purchasing it, in what proportion, and how the costs will be shared, because when the relationship ends, what seemed obvious whilst everything was going well can become a complex legal issue.

And, as the Supreme Court of Justice\u2019s ruling demonstrates, paying for the property on your own does not, in itself, mean that you are its sole owner.<\/strong>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Filipe Pereira Duarte<\/a><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Partner<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

B\u00e1rbara Lima Paix\u00e3o<\/a><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Lawyer<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t