Short answer. Yes. Under Article 1801, where two or more partners are entrusted with management and no duties are divided and no consent clause was agreed, each may separately perform all acts of administration. But if one opposes an act, the decision of the majority prevails, and a tie is broken by the controlling interest.
What the law says
each one may separately execute all acts of administration, but if any of them should oppose the acts of the others, the decision of the majority shall prevail. In case of a tie, the matter shall be decided by the partners owning the controlling interest.
Civil Code, Article 1801 — Two or More Managers. Read the full provision →
Each manager can act on his own
When your agreement names two or more managing partners but does not split their tasks or say that one cannot act without the others' consent, the law treats each as fully empowered. Article 1801 says each one may separately execute all acts of administration. In practice, either managing partner can sign the ordinary contracts, hire, pay bills and run the day-to-day business alone, and the firm is bound by what he does. You do not have to act jointly on every routine decision. This flexibility keeps the business moving, since requiring both signatures for everything would paralyse ordinary operations.
Opposition triggers a majority vote
That independence is not absolute. Article 1801 adds that if any of them should oppose the acts of the others, the decision of the majority shall prevail. So if one managing partner objects before the act is carried out, the matter is put to the vote of the managers, and the majority wins. The opposition has to be timely — voiced while the decision is still open, not after the deal is already done. This gives each manager a real check: he cannot personally veto a co-manager, but he can force the question to be resolved collectively rather than let one person's choice simply stand.
Breaking a tie between two managers
With exactly two managing partners, a disagreement can end in deadlock, so the article supplies a tiebreaker: in case of a tie, the matter shall be decided by the partners owning the controlling interest. That looks to ownership stakes rather than headcount. The partners who hold the larger share of the partnership's capital settle the dispute. This means that between your two managers, if they split evenly on a contested act, the outcome turns on which side commands the controlling interest in the firm. Careful partnership agreements often spell out management and consent rules in advance precisely to avoid landing in these default provisions.