Short answer. Yes. Under Article 489, expenses to improve or embellish co-owned property must be decided by a majority of the co-owners, measured by interest rather than by headcount. Preservation repairs are treated differently — any single co-owner may order them alone, provided he first notifies the others of the need where that is practicable.
What the law says
Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the co-owners, but he must, if practicable, first notify his co-owners of the necessity for such repairs.
Civil Code, Article 489 — Repairs and Improvements. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Expenses to improve or embellish the thing shall be decided upon by a majority
Civil Code, Article 489 — Repairs and Improvements. Read the full provision →
Two kinds of spending, two different rules
Article 489 draws a line that decides who may authorise money spent on co-owned property. On one side are repairs for preservation — work that keeps the property in its existing state and stops it deteriorating. On the other are improvements and embellishments — spending that adds to or beautifies the property beyond keeping it whole. The first can be set in motion by a single co-owner; the second cannot. Getting a project on the correct side of that line is what tells a co-owner whether he may act on his own or must first gather the others.
Preservation repairs: one co-owner may act
The Code is permissive about urgent upkeep: repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the co-owners, but he must, if practicable, first notify his co-owners of the necessity for such repairs. A leaking roof or a failing wall need not wait for a meeting; any co-owner may commission the repair and later compel the others to contribute their shares. The notice condition softens this — where it is practicable to tell the others first, he should, so they are not surprised by a bill for work they had no chance to weigh in on.
Improvements need the majority
For anything beyond preservation, the rule tightens: expenses to improve or embellish the thing shall be decided upon by a majority. One co-owner cannot renovate, extend or beautify the common property and then charge the cost to the rest. The majority the Code means is a majority of interests, not of persons — the concurrence of the co-owners who together hold the controlling financial stake. A single owner of a majority interest can therefore carry an improvement, while several owners of small shares cannot force one through against the holder of the larger interest.
Why the classification matters
The stakes of the distinction fall on the co-owner who spends first and asks later. Money laid out on genuine preservation is recoverable from the others as a matter of right; money laid out on an improvement the majority never approved is not, and the spending owner may be left carrying it alone or removing what he built. So before committing funds, a co-owner should ask honestly whether the work merely keeps the property as it is or makes it something more — and if it is the latter, secure the majority's agreement in a form he can prove, rather than assume the others will share a cost they never sanctioned.