Short answer. Yes. Article 500 provides that on partition each co-owner must pay for damage caused by his own negligence or fraud. Separate from the mutual accounting for benefits and expenses, this clause makes a co-owner who harmed the property through carelessness or dishonesty bear that loss himself, rather than have it shared.
What the law says
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 →
A liability separate from the ordinary accounting
Partition comes with a settling of accounts, but Article 500 adds a distinct charge on top of it: likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. This is not the routine give-and-take of reimbursing expenses and crediting benefits, where every co-owner is both owed and owing. It singles out the one whose own misconduct diminished the property, and puts that loss on him alone. So a co-owner can come out of the accounting square on expenses and fruits, and still owe for damage his carelessness or dishonesty caused.
What damage the clause reaches
The clause covers loss to the common property attributable to a co-owner's own conduct while the co-ownership lasted — a structure left to rot through neglect, income diverted or concealed, a portion dealt with as though it were his exclusively, documents withheld to the others' prejudice. What it does not cover is ordinary deterioration, or a loss no one caused. The distinguishing feature is fault: the property is worse off, and it is worse off because of something this co-owner did or failed to do, not because of the passage of time or an accident nobody could help.
Negligence and fraud are not the same charge
The article names two states of mind, and the difference matters. Negligence is carelessness — failing to take the ordinary steps a prudent co-owner would to preserve the shared property. Fraud is deliberate dishonesty — concealment, misappropriation, dealing behind the others' backs. Both make the culprit pay, but they are proved differently and colour how a court views the wider dispute; a co-owner shown to have acted in fraud invites closer scrutiny of everything else he did. Framing the claim accurately, rather than labelling every loss "fraud," is part of establishing it.
When and how it is raised
This liability is naturally settled as part of the partition, so the moment the property is being divided is the moment to press it — offset against what the culpable co-owner would otherwise take, or claimed from him directly. Making it stick requires evidence that ties the loss to his conduct: the property's condition over time, the income it produced and what became of it, and records of who was in control when the damage occurred. A co-owner who arrives at the division with that record documented is in a far stronger position than one asserting negligence from memory.
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 →