Short answer. Yes, in most cases. Under Article 1017 of the Civil Code, 'in equal shares' language does not block accretion. The dropped heir's portion grows onto the shares of those who remain, as long as the will did not separately earmark each heir's specific piece of property.
What the law says
The words "one-half for each" or "in equal shares" or any others which, though designating an aliquot part, do not identify it by such description as shall make each heir the exclusive owner of determinate property, shall not exclude the right of accretion.
Civil Code, Article 1017 — 'In Equal Shares' Still Allows Accretion. Read the full provision →
What 'in equal shares' actually means for accretion
Many people assume that language like 'in equal shares' locks each heir into a fixed fraction that cannot shift. Article 1017 says the opposite. The words 'one-half for each' or 'in equal shares' or any others which, though designating an aliquot part, do not identify it by such description as shall make each heir the exclusive owner of determinate property, shall not exclude the right of accretion. In other words, specifying a proportionate share — a half, a third, equal portions — is not the same as designating specific property to each heir. As long as the will does not point one heir to a particular lot and another to a different one, the proportionate language leaves room for accretion.
When accretion cannot happen
The exception under Article 1017 is when the will's language actually designates determinate property to each heir. If the testator wrote 'the farm in Batangas to Ana, in equal shares with my daughter Rita,' and the farm is a single, identified piece of land, there is an argument that Ana and Rita were made exclusive co-owners of that specific property. Whether the language crosses from proportionate shares into determinate-property allocation depends on the exact wording and the context of the will as a whole. Interpretation requires reading the will carefully and considering what the testator most likely intended.
Cash and fungible goods follow the same rule
Article 1017 also addresses cash and other fungible goods — items that are interchangeable and measured by quantity. For these, accretion applies whenever each heir's share is not earmarked. So if the will leaves a bank balance or a stock of goods 'in equal shares' without separately identifying which portion belongs to which heir, the right of accretion arises. A dropped heir's share of the cash or goods goes to the remaining heirs proportionately.
Why the dropped heir's share does not simply lapse
Accretion prevents a share from becoming a gap in the estate. When an heir predeceases the testator, repudiates the inheritance, or is incapacitated, the question is what happens to the share that was meant for them. Without accretion, that portion might pass by intestacy or remain unallocated. With accretion, it automatically grows onto the other heirs called to the same inheritance, so the testator's property goes where the will directed — to those who take under it — rather than partly outside the will entirely. Article 1017 makes clear that equal-shares language is not an obstacle to this.