Short answer. Yes, but it costs him the share he gives up, and only that much. Article 488 lets a co-owner escape his duty to contribute to preservation expenses and taxes by renouncing enough of his undivided interest to cover his share — but the waiver fails if it would prejudice the co-ownership.
What the law says
Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes.
Civil Code, Article 488 — Contribution to Expenses and Taxes. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes.
Civil Code, Article 488 — Contribution to Expenses and Taxes. Read the full provision →
The duty to contribute is enforceable
Article 488 begins by giving every co-owner a lever over the others: each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. A co-owner who advances the real property tax or pays for repairs that keep the property standing is not a volunteer; he can force the rest to pay their proportional shares. Preservation is not left to whoever happens to care most — the cost is shared, and the sharing can be enforced.
The renunciation is a swap, not a free pass
Against that duty the article offers one exit: a co-owner may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. This is not walking away for nothing. He escapes the bill only by surrendering a corresponding slice of what he owns, which passes to the co-owners who carry the cost. The device suits an owner who no longer values his share enough to fund it — but he leaves poorer in interest by exactly the amount he saves in cash.
No waiver that prejudices the co-ownership
The escape is capped by a final clause: no such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership. A co-owner cannot renounce his way out where doing so would leave the property unable to meet a cost it must meet — for instance abandoning a share of an urgent, indivisible preservation expense in a way that jeopardises the thing itself. The waiver is a personal relief from contribution, not a tool to strand the remaining owners with a burden the renouncing owner's exit makes unmanageable.
Which expenses the rule reaches
Article 488 covers two things only: expenses of preservation and taxes. Preservation means what keeps the property in being — necessary repairs, the assessments that stop it being sold for delinquency. It does not reach improvements or embellishments, which the Code treats separately and which need a majority decision, not a unilateral outlay a co-owner can later charge to everyone. So a co-owner minded to renounce should first classify the expense: if it merely preserved the property or paid its taxes, the contribution rule and its renunciation exit apply; if it improved the property, a different rule governs entirely.
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.
- Heirs of Jose Reyes, jr. namely; Magdalena C. reyes, et al. vs. Amanda S. Reyes, et al, G.R. No. 158377, August 13, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →