Short answer. No, not forever. The Civil Code voids a testator's direction that keeps all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years. A ban on selling is respected, but only up to that ceiling; beyond it the prohibition has no force and the heirs may sell.

What the law says

The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void.

Civil Code, Article 870 — The Twenty-Year Limit on Inalienability. Read the full provision →

The twenty-year ceiling

Article 870 states it plainly: the dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void. A parent may have strong feelings about the house the family grew up in, and the law lets him act on them for a time. What it will not allow is a permanent freeze. Property that can never be sold, mortgaged or exchanged is property taken out of commerce altogether, and the Code treats a testamentary attempt to do that as beyond what a testator may impose on the living. The clause "this house shall never be sold" is therefore not a life sentence on the heirs.

What happens to the clause — and to the gift

It is the prohibition that fails, not the inheritance. Where a will hands the house to the children but forbids any sale forever, the children still take the house; what is struck down is the excess in the restriction. The property does not go back to the estate, and it does not pass to somebody else because the condition could not be honoured. Read practically, a will silent on duration cannot lock the property up indefinitely, and a will that names a period longer than twenty years cannot be enforced past that ceiling. The heirs' ownership is real ownership; the restraint is the part with an expiry date.

Twenty years from when, and who is bound

The clock is tied to the succession, which opens at the testator's death — not at the reading of the will, not at the end of settlement proceedings. Meanwhile the restriction binds only the heirs and those who take from them with notice of it; it does not by itself defeat the rights of creditors of the estate, and it cannot be used to keep property away from the payment of the decedent's debts and taxes. A prohibition on selling also does not stop the compulsory heirs from receiving their legitimes. A testator cannot use a restraint on alienation to do indirectly what the law on legitimes forbids him to do directly.

If your family is in this position now

Two things matter before anyone signs anything. First, the exact wording: a direction not to sell is different from a usufruct in favour of a surviving parent, and different again from a trust arrangement over the property, and each has its own consequences for who may sell and when. Second, the date of death and any extrajudicial settlement or partition already executed, because those determine what each heir actually holds today. Bring the will, the title, the death certificate and any settlement documents to counsel and ask specifically how much of the restriction remains and who must sign a deed of sale. Do not rely on a family agreement that ignores the clause — a buyer's title check will find it.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.