Short answer. Yes, for matters of administration. Decisions on managing and better enjoying property owned in common are binding when approved by the majority of the co-owners. But 'majority' here means those who represent the controlling interest in the property, measured by share, not simply a head-count.
What the law says
For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership.
Civil Code, Article 492 — How Co-owners Decide on Administration. Read the full provision →
Day-to-day management goes by majority
Co-ownership does not require unanimity for ordinary management. Article 492 says that for the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. This covers the running of the property, decisions such as repairs, leasing it out on ordinary terms, hiring someone to look after it, and similar acts of administration. Once the required majority approves such a resolution, it binds the co-owners, including those who disagreed. The law adopts majority rule here so that a single objecting co-owner cannot paralyse the sensible management of property that several people own together.
How the 'majority' is counted
The majority in this article is not one vote per person. It provides that there shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership. The measure is the size of the shares, not the number of heads. A co-owner who holds a larger fractional interest carries more weight, and a group holding more than half of the total interest forms the majority even if they are fewer people. So counting who is on each side is not enough; you have to add up the shares those co-owners actually own in the property.
The limits of majority power
Majority rule under this article is confined to administration and better enjoyment. It does not authorise the majority to do whatever they like with the property. Acts that go beyond management, such as fundamentally altering the thing or disposing of the co-owned property itself, are not covered by this provision and generally require the agreement of all the co-owners. The article also builds in a safety valve. Where there is no majority, or where the majority's resolution is seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property, an interested party may go to court, which shall order such measures as it may deem proper, including the appointment of an administrator. So a controlling group cannot use administration to trample the others.
What this means for co-owners
If you co-own property, this article shapes how management disputes are resolved: gather the shares, not just the people, and a controlling-interest majority can bind the rest on matters of administration. If you are in the minority and a decision is genuinely harmful to your interest, the route is not self-help but an application to the court. And if the plan is to sell or radically change the property rather than merely manage it, majority approval under this article is not enough. Because the line between administration and disposition can be delicate, it is worth confirming which side of it your decision falls.