Can co-owners agree to keep their property undivided instead of partitioning it, and for how long?

Partition is a right, not a favour

The starting point of Article 494 is that co-ownership is not a prison: no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. A co-owner who wants out does not need the others' consent and need not justify the timing. The law treats indivision as a temporary state that any owner may end, which is why keeping a property undivided requires a positive agreement — the default always runs the other way, towards division on demand.

The ten-year ceiling, and renewal

Against that default the co-owners may bind themselves to wait. The Code provides that an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement. Ten years is the hard cap on any single agreement; a stipulation for fifteen or twenty is not void, but is simply read down to ten. When the ten years lapse the co-owners are free to renew for another period, so a long indivision is achieved not by one long contract but by successive agreements each within the limit.

Prohibitions by a donor, a testator, or by law

There are two further ways property stays undivided without the co-owners' own agreement. A donor or testator who gives property to several people may prohibit its partition, and that prohibition binds for a period not exceeding twenty years — longer than the co-owners could impose on themselves, because it is the giver's condition on the gift. Partition is also barred wherever the law itself forbids it. Outside these situations, no clause and no wish can permanently defeat a co-owner's right to demand his separate share.

Time does not quietly transfer a share

Article 494 closes with a protection that matters when years pass in indivision: no prescription runs in favour of one co-owner against the others so long as he expressly or impliedly recognises the co-ownership. A co-owner who merely occupies or manages the whole property, while still treating it as shared, does not acquire the others' shares by the lapse of time. That protection ends only if he unequivocally repudiates the co-ownership and the others are made aware of it — a demanding standard, so a co-owner who has stayed silent for years has usually lost nothing by waiting.

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.

• Vilma Quintos, represented by her Attorney-in-Facts Fidel I. Quintos, Jr., et al. vs. Pelagia I. Nicolas, et al, G.R. No. 210252, June 16, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Guillerma S. Silva vs. Conchita S. Lo, G.R. No. 206667, June 23, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Heirs of Juanita Padilla, represented by Claudio Padilla vs. Dominador Magdua, G.R. No. 176858, September 15, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Mercedes Cristobal Cruz, et al. vs. Eufrosina Cristobal, et al, G.R. No. 140422, August 7, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 494 — Right to Demand Partition