Short answer. It does not have to go through a formal court process. Article 1082 treats every act intended to end the co-heirs' indivision as a partition, even if it is structured as a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or some other transaction — what matters is the intent to end the shared ownership, not the label on the document.
What the law says
Every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, and exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.
Civil Code, Article 1082 — Any Act Ending Indivision Is a Partition. Read the full provision →
Intent, not procedure, is the test
Article 1082 defines partition by what an act is intended to do, not by the procedure used to do it: every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition. The article looks past the form of the transaction to its purpose. If the purpose of the act was to end the shared, undivided ownership among the co-heirs, the article treats it as a partition regardless of how it was carried out.
Labels do not control the outcome
The article is explicit that this is true although it should purport to be a sale, and exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction. Heirs who structure their division of an estate as a sale between themselves, an exchange of specific properties, or a negotiated compromise are not thereby avoiding the legal character of a partition. Whatever the document calls itself, Article 1082 looks at what the act actually accomplished — ending the co-heirs' indivision — and treats it as a partition on that basis.
So a formal court process is not the only route
Because Article 1082 recognizes acts as partitions even when they take the form of ordinary transactions between the heirs, a court proceeding is not the only way an estate can be legally partitioned under this article. Heirs who agree among themselves and carry out an act meant to end their indivision — however that act is documented — fall within what the article describes, without that agreement having to be labeled or filed as a formal partition case.
What still has to be true
The article's coverage still depends on the act genuinely being intended to put an end to indivision. A transaction between co-heirs that does not actually resolve their shared ownership — one that leaves the property still held in common, for instance — does not become a partition simply because Article 1082 is generous about form. The intent and effect of ending the co-heirs' shared holding is what the article requires; the paperwork used to get there is what it does not dictate.
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 →
- Leonardo Notarte, et al. vs. Godofredo Notarte, G.R. No. 180614, August 29, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Noli Alfonso and Erlinda Fundialan vs. Spouses Henry and Liwanag Andres, G.R. No. 166236, July 29, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rolando Sanchez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108947, September 29, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →