Short answer. Possibly, but not simply because the refusal is unreasonable. Article 491 forbids alterations without the others' consent even where everyone would benefit. Only where withholding consent is clearly prejudicial to the common interest may the courts afford adequate relief — a higher bar than showing the project is a good idea.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 491 — No Alterations Without Consent. Read the full provision →
The default is a veto, and it is deliberate
Read the concession in the first sentence: the prohibition applies even though benefits for all would result therefrom. The Code anticipated exactly the argument the improving co-owner wants to make and refused it. The reason is that an alteration changes the thing itself, and a co-owner's stake is in the property as it stands, not in someone else's judgment about what it should become. So the starting position is that any one of you can say no to an alteration, and being outvoted is not the same as being overridden.
Alteration is narrower than improvement
This is where these disputes are usually won. Acts of mere administration and ordinary maintenance are not alterations and do not need unanimity — repairing a roof, repainting, keeping a fence standing, arranging a lease of the kind already in place. An alteration is a change in the substance, form or use of the common property: converting a residence into commercial space, demolishing part of it, putting up a new structure, changing the character of the land. Before assuming you need consent at all, work out honestly which side of that line your project falls on.
"Clearly prejudicial to the common interest" is the standard
The relief clause does not measure the refusing co-owner's motives, and spite alone is not the test. What must be shown is harm to the common interest from the withholding itself — the property deteriorating, an obligation on it going unmet, a use being lost that the co-ownership depends on. Note also that the article promises adequate relief rather than authority to proceed as proposed. A court fashions what the situation needs, which may be narrower than the plan the majority wanted, and may address the deadlock rather than the project.
Build the record before you build anything
A co-owner who alters the common property without consent is exposed regardless of how good the result is, so proceeding and asking afterwards is the worst option available. Put the proposal to the others in writing, with cost and scope, and keep the reply or the silence. Document the condition of the property and what the refusal is costing it. And consider whether the real answer is partition rather than relief, since a co-ownership where nobody can agree on the property's future is often better ended than managed.
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 →