Short answer. Yes. Article 1077 of the Civil Code provides that a collation dispute does not interrupt the distribution of the estate, provided adequate security is given. The estate need not be frozen while the collation question is resolved — the rest can proceed as long as security protects whoever might benefit from the disputed collation.
What the law says
Should any question arise among the co-heirs upon the obligation to bring to collation or as to the things which are subject to collation, the distribution of the estate shall not be interrupted for this reason, provided adequate security is given.
Civil Code, Article 1077 — Disputes Suspend Distribution. Read the full provision →
The rule: disputes do not freeze the estate
Article 1077 addresses a common problem in estate settlement: the collation dispute stalls everything. One heir insists that a gift given to a sibling years ago must be counted in the partition; that sibling disagrees. Meanwhile, the entire estate sits undistributed while the argument drags on. The law refuses to allow this indefinite stalemate. It provides that "the distribution of the estate shall not be interrupted for this reason" — so the rest of the estate can be divided and given to the heirs while the collation issue is separately resolved.
Adequate security is the condition
The one requirement is that adequate security be given. This security protects the heir who might benefit if the collation dispute is resolved in their favor. If the dispute involves whether a donated parcel must be brought back into the estate, the security must be sufficient to cover the value of what that heir would receive if the collation is ordered. Without the security, distribution cannot proceed over the objection of the party who might be harmed by skipping ahead. The form of adequate security — bond, pledge, deposit, or other arrangement — is determined by agreement or, if the parties cannot agree, by the court.
What kinds of collation questions this covers
Article 1077 applies to two types of disputes: questions about whether a particular heir has an obligation to collate at all, and questions about which specific items are subject to collation. The first type arises when heirs disagree on whether a transfer was a donation subject to collation or some other kind of transaction — a sale, a payment of an obligation — that does not require it. The second arises when there is no dispute that something must be collated but disagreement over what falls within that category. Either type is covered by the rule: neither freezes the rest of the estate.
Practical implications
If you are an heir not involved in the dispute, this rule works in your favor: you should be able to receive your share of the undisputed estate without waiting for the collation argument to conclude. If you are the heir pressing the collation claim, you need to ensure that adequate security is actually in place before distribution proceeds — because once the rest of the estate is distributed without proper security, enforcing your eventual victory becomes harder. Agreeing on what counts as adequate security early, ideally in writing, avoids a secondary dispute about the protection that was supposed to be protecting you.