Short answer. Yes — the Code requires it. Partition comes with a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursement for expenses made, and a co-owner who caused loss through negligence or fraud pays for it. The division of the land and the settling of the books are one operation, not two.
What the law says
Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud.
Civil Code, Article 500 — Accounting on Partition. Read the full provision →
The accounting is part of the partition
Article 500 provides that upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. Two features of that sentence matter. It is mandatory — not something one side has to negotiate for — and it is mutual, so the co-owner asking for it will be answering questions of his own. Dividing the property without settling the money simply postpones the argument, because the years of unequal spending and unequal enjoyment do not disappear when the surveyor draws the lines.
What goes on each side of the ledger
On the benefits side: rent collected from tenants, harvests taken, the value of exclusive occupation where one co-owner had the use of the whole while the others had none, and any income the property produced. On the expenses side: taxes paid, repairs that preserved the property, insurance, and the costs of keeping the title in order. Improvements sit less comfortably, since a co-owner who spent on upgrades the others never agreed to is in a weaker position than one who paid the assessments that kept the land from being sold out from under everybody.
The clause about negligence and fraud
The second sentence adds that each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. This is separate from the ordinary accounting and it is where genuine misconduct is dealt with: rent collected and concealed, a portion sold or mortgaged as though it were exclusive property, a building allowed to fall down through neglect, documents kept from the others. Losses of that kind are charged to the one who caused them rather than shared, which is why the distinction between a co-owner who managed badly and one who acted dishonestly is worth drawing carefully.
Assemble the record before the shares are drawn
Work back through the whole period of co-ownership rather than the last year or two, and get the documentary spine of it: tax receipts, lease contracts and the rent actually received, bank records, invoices for repairs, and photographs showing the property's condition at different times. Where a co-owner occupied the property, note the dates. If you are heading for a court-supervised partition, this material is what the accounting will be built from, and the co-owner who arrives with organised receipts is in a materially better position than the one relying on what everyone remembers.
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.
- Rebecca Desamito Vda. De Alcantara, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 114762, January 29, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Salud Dizon Salamat, et al. vs. Natividad Dizon Tamayo, et al, G.R. No. 110644, October 30, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →