Short answer. Yes. Article 497 of the Civil Code lets a creditor impugn a partition executed despite the creditor's formal opposition, but the same provision expressly preserves your right, as the debtor, to maintain the partition's validity. The objection opens the door to a challenge; it does not automatically void what was done.
What the law says
they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity
Civil Code, Article 497 — Creditors in Partition. Read the full provision →
What the law gives your creditor
Article 497 gives the creditors or assignees of the co-owners two things: the right to take part in the division of the property owned in common, and the right to object to the division being carried out without their concurrence. The idea is straightforward. A partition rearranges what each co-owner ends up holding, and a creditor who expects to collect from a co-owner's share has a real stake in how that share is carved out. So the law lets the creditor watch the division happen, participate in it, and put a formal objection on record before it is completed. What the creditor does with that objection — and what you can do in response — is where the second half of the article comes in.
The general rule protects a finished partition
Once a partition has actually been executed, the starting point is that creditors cannot impugn it. Article 497 says they "cannot impugn any partition already executed" except in two situations: when there has been fraud, or when the partition was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it. A creditor who stayed silent while the division happened is therefore stuck with the result. Your situation falls under the second exception — a formal opposition was presented, and the partition went ahead anyway. That means your creditor is not barred from suing: the formal objection preserved the creditor's standing to attack the partition in court.
Your right to maintain its validity
Here is the part that answers your question. Even in the two situations where a creditor may impugn the partition, Article 497 adds that this is without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity. In plain terms: the creditor gets to file the challenge, and you get to defend against it. The law does not treat a partition made over a formal opposition as automatically void. It treats it as a partition the creditor may attack and the debtor may justify, with the court deciding between them. So going ahead despite the objection was a risk, not an instant nullity — you keep the right to stand by what was done.
What the fight will actually turn on
Because the statute leaves the partition open to attack rather than striking it down, the outcome depends on the facts. A partition that gave each co-owner a fair equivalent of their undivided share leaves the creditor's ability to collect essentially where it was, and that is the natural ground on which its validity would be defended. One made to shuffle assets away from a collecting creditor looks very different — and if fraud is shown, that is an independent ground of attack under the same article. Expect the dispute to focus on how the shares were valued and allocated, and on whether the creditor was actually prejudiced. This is general legal information; how a court weighs those facts in a particular case is something to take to counsel.
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.
- Julita Rombaua Panganiban, et al. vs. Julita S. Oamil, G.R. No. 149313, January 22, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Fe U. Quijano vs. Atty. Darill Almante, G.R. No. 164277, October 8, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →