Short answer. Yes, but only by agreement of the co-owners, express or implied. Until they agree on a new purpose, each may use the common property only for the purpose it is already intended for, and only in a way that neither injures the co-ownership nor stops the others from using it too.
What the law says
Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights.
Civil Code, Article 486 — Use of the Common Thing. Read the full provision →
Each co-owner may use it — under three conditions
Article 486 lets every co-owner use the whole thing, not merely his abstract share, which is why one co-owner can occupy the entire house or work the entire field. But the right comes fenced by three conditions in a single sentence: the use must be in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended, it must not injure the interest of the co-ownership, and it must not prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. A residential lot cannot be turned into a piggery by one owner, and no owner may take the property so completely that the others are shut out.
Changing the purpose takes agreement
The purpose is not fixed forever, but no single co-owner can rewrite it. The article closes with the rule that the purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied. Converting farmland to a commercial use, or a family home into rental units, is a change of purpose that binds only if the co-owners agree to it. One owner who unilaterally repurposes the property acts outside Article 486 and answers to the others for it, because the intended use is a shared setting that only the group can reset.
Agreement can be implied, not just written
The law does not demand a signed resolution. An agreement to change the use may be implied from conduct — the co-owners together letting the property out for a use it was never put to, or knowingly accepting the benefits of the new purpose over time without objecting. Silence with knowledge and acceptance can amount to consent. The practical difficulty is proof: an implied agreement is easy to assert and hard to establish, so a co-owner relying on one should be able to point to acts of the others that make sense only as acceptance of the change.
The limit that protects the others
Even a use that stays within the intended purpose fails if it injures the co-ownership or crowds the others out. "Not preventing the others from using it" does not require literal simultaneous use of every square metre; it bars a co-owner from appropriating the property as though it were exclusively his. Where one owner has had sole enjoyment while the rest had none, that imbalance surfaces on partition as an accounting for the benefits received. The safer course, before altering how a shared property is used, is to secure the others' agreement in a form you can later prove.
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.
- Leonor B. Cruz vs. Teofila M. Catapang, G.R. No. 164110, February 12, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Felicitacion B. Borbajo vs. Hidden View Homeowners, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 152440, January 31, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →