Short answer. Yes, but only as a starting point. The Code presumes the portions of co-owners equal unless the contrary is proved, so equality is what applies while nobody shows otherwise. It is a presumption, not a rule of division, and evidence of unequal interests displaces it.
What the law says
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.
Civil Code, Article 485 — Shares in Benefits and Charges. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests.
Civil Code, Article 485 — Shares in Benefits and Charges. Read the full provision →
A presumption is a default, not a decision
Article 485 provides that the portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved. The closing clause is the operative part. Equality is the answer the law gives when nothing is known about the shares, because it has to give some answer and there is no reason to prefer one heir over another in the dark. Produce a document showing different proportions and the presumption simply drops out. It never overrides a will, a deed or the rules on succession; it fills the gap those leave.
What actually fixes the shares among heirs
Among siblings inheriting from a parent the shares are determined by the law on succession and by any valid will, not by this article. In the ordinary case where children inherit alike, the two give the same result, which is why the presumption is so often assumed to be the rule. But the picture changes where there is a surviving spouse, where a child predeceased and left children of his own, where property was advanced to one sibling during the parent's lifetime, or where the estate is a mixture of exclusive and community property. In those situations equal shares is the assumption that misleads.
Shares govern the burdens too
The same article opens by providing that the share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests, and it makes any stipulation to the contrary void. Whoever takes the larger part of the rent carries the larger part of the taxes and repairs. This matters in the common arrangement where one sibling lives in the family house, another pays the assessments and a third collects rent from a portion. The proportions cannot be split one way for income and another way for expense, however the family has been running it.
Settle the arithmetic before dividing anything
Gather the parent's title and any will, the death certificate, and whatever shows how the property was acquired and when, since property brought into a marriage is treated differently from property acquired during it. Then list what each sibling has already received or paid, with dates and receipts — advances, taxes, repairs, rent collected. The shares are worked out on that record. Doing it before a buyer appears is far easier than doing it afterwards, because a sale needs every share accounted for and the person under pressure is usually the one who most wants the deal.
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.
- Edilberto U. Ventura, Jr. vs. Sps. Paulino and Evangeline Abuda, G.R. No. 202932, October 23, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- In the matter of the Intestate of Reynaldo Guzman Rodriguez; Anita Ong Tan vs. Rolando C. Rodriguez, et al, G.R. No. 230404, January 31, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Dominador M. Apique vs. Evangeline Fahnenstich, G.R. No. 205705, August 5, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Aurora L. Tecson, et al. vs. Minverva, Maria, et al. all surnamed Fausto and Isabel Vda. De Fausto, G.R. No. 180683, June 1, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →