Text of the provision
Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
(400a)
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
No co-owner can be forced to stay in the co-ownership; each may demand partition at any time. Exceptions: an agreement to keep it undivided for up to ten years (renewable), a donor's or testator's prohibition for up to twenty years, or a legal prohibition. Prescription does not run between co-owners while the co-ownership is recognized.
Questions about this provision
- Can a co-owner force the partition of inherited property?
- My parents died over twenty years ago and their estate was never formally settled — can the heirs still divide it now, or has that right expired?
Related provisions
- Article 491 — No Alterations Without Consent.
- Article 495 — When Physical Division Is Impossible.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Guillerma S. Silva vs. Conchita S. Lo, G.R. No. 206667, June 23, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Juanita Padilla, represented by Claudio Padilla vs. Dominador Magdua, G.R. No. 176858, September 15, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Mercedes Cristobal Cruz, et al. vs. Eufrosina Cristobal, et al, G.R. No. 140422, August 7, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Milagros Manongsong, et al. vs. Felomena Jumaquio Estimo, et al, G.R. No. 136773, June 25, 2003 — 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.