Short answer. Yes. Under Article 1101 the co-heir who is sued over an unfair partition holds the option, not the plaintiff. He may either indemnify the plaintiff for the loss, in cash or with a thing of the same kind and quality, or agree to a new partition. So the others need not always redo the entire division.
What the law says
The heir who is sued shall have the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new partition.
Civil Code, Article 1101 — The Defendant's Option. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by the delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that awarded to the plaintiff.
Civil Code, Article 1101 — The Defendant's Option. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If a new partition is made, it shall affect neither those who have not been prejudiced nor those have not received more than their just share.
Civil Code, Article 1101 — The Defendant's Option. Read the full provision →
The defendant heir chooses the remedy
When a co-heir complains that a completed partition shortchanged him, the law does not automatically undo the whole division. Article 1101 places the choice with the heir being sued: the heir who is sued shall have the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new partition. That means the plaintiff can prove he received less than his just share, but he cannot dictate the fix. The defending heir decides whether to pay the shortfall or to reopen the partition, which keeps a single grievance from forcing everyone back to the start.
Indemnity: cash or an equivalent thing
The first option lets the dispute be settled with money or its equivalent. Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by the delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that awarded to the plaintiff. So a heir who was given movable or fungible property can make the plaintiff whole by handing over cash or a comparable thing equal to the loss, rather than disturbing the shares already distributed to everyone else. This is usually the least disruptive path, because it corrects the imbalance without unwinding a partition the other heirs have relied upon.
A new partition is limited in reach
If the defending heir instead consents to a new partition, the reopening is not total. If a new partition is made, it shall affect neither those who have not been prejudiced nor those have not received more than their just share. Only the shares actually involved in the imbalance are adjusted; heirs who received exactly their due are left untouched. The redivision is therefore surgical rather than wholesale, aimed at the specific inequality the plaintiff proved rather than at every allotment made in the estate.
Why the option protects the estate
The design of Article 1101 protects the stability of a settled estate. A single heir who feels shortchanged cannot hold the entire distribution hostage or force all the others to renegotiate. He is entitled to be made whole, but the manner of doing so rests with the heir who must pay, and any redivision touches only the parts that were genuinely unfair. For heirs, the practical lesson is that proving prejudice earns a correction, not necessarily a fresh partition of everything.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Teodoro Sta. Ana vs. Lourdes Panlasigue, et al, G.R. No. 152652, August 31, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →