Short answer. Yes. Article 1079 of the Civil Code defines partition as the separation, division, and assignment of a thing held in common — and it expressly provides that the thing itself may be divided, or its value. Heirs may choose either the property or its monetary equivalent.
What the law says
Partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. The thing itself may be divided, or its value.
Civil Code, Article 1079 — Partition Defined. Read the full provision →
What partition means under the Civil Code
Article 1079 gives partition its legal definition: it is the separation, division, and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. While the most intuitive image of partition is splitting a parcel of land into separate titled portions, the article immediately clarifies that dividing the physical thing is not the only option. The value of the estate — in money or in kind equivalent — may be divided instead. This flexibility is built into the definition itself, not treated as an exception.
When dividing value is the practical choice
Dividing value instead of the physical property becomes the more sensible route in several common situations. A single house on a lot cannot realistically be sliced into three independent dwellings and assigned to three heirs. Agricultural land below the minimum retention area cannot legally be subdivided further. A closely held business may lose its value if ownership is fragmented across many heirs. In all these cases, the heirs may agree to have the asset sold and the proceeds divided in proportion to their respective shares, or to have one heir buy out the others at an agreed or appraised value. The law permits both.
Agreement on valuation is key
When heirs choose to divide value rather than the thing itself, the central practical issue is agreeing on what the estate — or the relevant asset — is worth. If heirs cannot agree on value, one remedy is to have the property independently appraised by a licensed real estate appraiser. Courts, in judicial partition proceedings, can also order a property sold at public auction and direct that the proceeds be distributed among the heirs according to their shares. The flexibility that Article 1079 grants comes with the practical requirement that value must be established in a way all heirs or the court can stand behind.
Partition of value does not change the legitime
Choosing to divide value instead of the property does not reduce or waive any heir's entitlement. Compulsory heirs remain entitled to their legitime regardless of whether distribution is in the form of physical property or its monetary equivalent. If an estate consists of a single asset — say, a house — and one heir is assigned that house while others receive cash buyouts, the cash must fairly represent what those heirs would have received had the physical property been divided. Shortchanging an heir's share through undervaluation is a ground to challenge the partition, whether the partition was by physical division or by value.
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.
- Heirs of Ernesto Morales, namely: Rosario M. Dangsalan, et al. vs. Astrid Morales Agustin, G.R. No. 224849, June 6, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jo-Ann Diaz-Salgado and Dr. Gerard C. Salgado vs. Luis G. Anson, G.R. No. 204494, July 27, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Marcelo Investment and Management Corp. and the Heirs of Edward T. Marcelo, namely Katherine J. Marcelo, et al. vs. Jose T. Marcelo, Jr, G.R. No. 209651, November 26, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Vilma Quintos, represented by her Attorney-in-Facts Fidel I. Quintos, Jr., et al. vs. Pelagia I. Nicolas, et al, G.R. No. 210252, June 16, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →