Text of the provision
Art. 1101. The heir who is sued shall have the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new partition. Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by the delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that awarded to the plaintiff. If a new partition is made, it shall affect neither those who have not been prejudiced nor those have not received more than their just share.
(1077a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
The heir sued has the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new partition. Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality.
Giving the sued heir a choice between indemnifying the plaintiff and agreeing to a fresh partition avoids forcing a full re-division of the estate whenever only one heir's share turns out to be deficient. Where a new partition is carried out, its effects are deliberately narrow: it does not disturb heirs who suffered no prejudice from the original division, nor those who, if anything, received more than their fair share. This keeps the remedy targeted at correcting the specific imbalance raised in the case, rather than reopening the entire distribution for everyone involved.
Questions about this provision
- A co-heir sued over an unfair partition — can the others satisfy him without redoing the whole division?
- A co-heir successfully sued me for lesion after our partition — do I have to redo the whole partition, or can I just pay the difference?
Related provisions
- Article 1100 — Four Years to Sue for Lesion.
- Article 1102 — An Heir Who Has Sold Cannot Sue.
Cases citing this article
- Teodoro Sta. Ana vs. Lourdes Panlasigue, et al, G.R. No. 152652, August 31, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.