Short answer. Yes to a third person, though only narrowly reviewable. Under Article 1798, partners may entrust the designation of each one's share in profits and losses to a third person, but that designation may be impugned only when it is manifestly inequitable — and not once you have begun to execute it or let three months pass after learning of it.

What the law says

such designation may be impugned only when it is manifestly inequitable.

Civil Code, Article 1798 — Designation by a Third Person. Read the full provision →

You may hand the split to an outsider

Partners do not have to decide the profit-and-loss shares among themselves; they can appoint a neutral to do it. Article 1798 provides that if the partners have agreed to intrust to a third person the designation of the share of each one in the profits and losses, such designation may be impugned only when it is manifestly inequitable. But once they have agreed to that, they are largely bound by the result. The decision is not open to reargument simply because a partner is unhappy with his share; the law protects the outsider's determination against ordinary second-guessing.

'Manifestly inequitable' is a high bar

The only ground to overturn the third person's designation is that it is manifestly inequitable — plainly, obviously unfair, not merely open to debate or less generous to you than you had hoped. A designation is not manifestly inequitable because a partner would have divided things differently, or because reasonable people could disagree about the fair split. It has to be unfairness that is evident on its face. This deliberately high threshold is what gives the device its point: if any dissatisfied partner could reopen the split, entrusting it to an outsider would settle nothing.

Two ways you lose the right to complain

Even the narrow right to impugn can be forfeited, in two ways the article spells out. First, a partner who has begun to execute the decision — who has started acting on the split — can no longer complain of it. Second, a partner who has not impugned the same within a period of three months from the time he had knowledge thereof loses the right by delay. So if you think the designation is manifestly inequitable, you must act on that promptly and not act on the split in the meantime.

It cannot be one of the partners

There is one thing the partners cannot do: hand the job to one of their own. The article ends flatly — the designation of losses and profits cannot be intrusted to one of the partners. Letting a single partner set everyone's shares would put him judge in his own cause, so the law forbids it outright; the person who divides must be a genuine outsider. When you use this mechanism, choose a true third person, and be clear that any challenge must come quickly and before anyone starts acting on the result.

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.