Short answer. Yes, in the right circumstances. Article 491 of the Civil Code normally requires every co-owner's consent before altering the property, but if withholding that consent is "clearly prejudicial to the common interest," the courts may step in and afford adequate relief, effectively letting the alteration proceed over the objection.
What the law says
if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief
Civil Code, Article 491 — No Alterations Without Consent. Read the full provision →
The default rule: unanimous consent for alterations
Article 491 opens with a firm rule: none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result therefrom. Notice that last clause — even a change that would clearly benefit everyone still needs consent. The law protects each co-owner's say over what happens to the property, not just their share of any resulting gain, so a majority wanting a change cannot simply outvote a holdout.
The exception for clearly prejudicial refusal
The same article carves out an exception: if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief. This is not a general power to overrule an unpopular co-owner — the refusal has to be shown as clearly damaging to the property or to the co-ownership as a whole, not merely inconvenient to the others who want the work done.
What counts as "clearly prejudicial"
A repair needed to stop ongoing deterioration, or an alteration required to keep the property usable or compliant with legal requirements, sits closer to "clearly prejudicial" than a discretionary upgrade one co-owner simply prefers. The word "clearly" is doing real work in the text — a debatable disagreement over what is best for the property is not the same as a refusal that is plainly damaging the common interest, and courts weigh that distinction on the specific facts presented.
Building the case for relief
If you are the co-owner seeking the alteration, document why the refusal is harmful — deterioration, safety issues, lost income, or costs that grow the longer the work is delayed — and keep a record of your attempts to obtain consent. Because this is a judicial remedy rather than something you can invoke on your own authority, take that documentation to a lawyer to evaluate whether a court action for relief under Article 491 is warranted here.
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.
- Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita Dela Cruz vs Genaro Nolasco and Jeremy Spencer Nolasco, G.R. No. 189420, March 26, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Leonor B. Cruz vs. Teofila M. Catapang, G.R. No. 164110, February 12, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Wheelers Club International, Inc. vs. Jovito Bonifacio, Jr, G.R. No. 139540, June 29, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Leopoldo Esteban, Sr., Represented Herein By Leopoldo Esteban, Jr. vs. Lynda Lim Llaguno, G.R. No. 255001, June 14, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →