Short answer. Yes. Article 927 says that if two or more heirs take possession of the estate, they are solidarily liable for the loss or destruction of a thing devised or bequeathed, even though only one of them was negligent. So all the heirs in possession answer for the damage, not just the one who caused it.
What the law says
If two or more heirs take possession of the estate, they shall be solidarily liable for the loss or destruction of a thing devised or bequeathed, even though only one of them should have been negligent.
Civil Code, Article 927 — Solidary Liability of Heirs in Possession. Read the full provision →
All heirs in possession are liable
Article 927 answers this directly and firmly. It provides: If two or more heirs take possession of the estate, they shall be solidarily liable for the loss or destruction of a thing devised or bequeathed, even though only one of them should have been negligent. So where several heirs have taken possession of the estate and a thing meant for a devisee or legatee is lost or destroyed, the beneficiary is not left to hunt down which heir was at fault. All of the heirs in possession answer for it together. The negligence of one is enough to expose the whole group to liability for the harm.
What solidary liability means for the beneficiary
The word solidarily is what gives this rule its bite. Solidary liability means the person entitled to the thing — the devisee or legatee — may demand the full value of the loss from any one of the heirs in possession, not merely a proportional share from each. He can proceed against the heir who is easiest to reach or most able to pay, and recover everything from that heir. This spares the injured beneficiary the burden of sorting out internal fault or chasing each heir separately. One solvent heir in possession can be made to shoulder the entire liability to the claimant.
Why possession carries this responsibility
The rule reflects the responsibility that comes with holding the estate. Heirs who take possession have the thing in their collective control, and with that control comes a shared duty to preserve what is destined for others. The law does not let heirs in possession point fingers among themselves to defeat the beneficiary's claim. Because they took the estate together, they are treated as answerable together for damage to a bequeathed thing under their care. Making them solidarily liable, even when only one was careless, pressures all of them to safeguard property that is not ultimately theirs to keep.
The limits and the internal reckoning
The article has boundaries. It applies to heirs who take possession of the estate, and to a thing devised or bequeathed — property the deceased left to a particular beneficiary. It fixes liability toward that beneficiary; it does not mean the blameless heirs must ultimately bear the loss among themselves. An heir made to pay for damage caused solely by another's negligence is generally entitled to recover from the one actually at fault, since solidary liability settles who the claimant may sue, not who finally absorbs the cost. Toward the beneficiary, though, all in possession stand as one.