- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 494
- Topic
- CO-OWNERSHIP
- Status
- In force
- Book
- BOOK II PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS
- Title
- TITLE III CO-OWNERSHIP
- Formerly
- Art. 400a of the old Civil Code
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
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)
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
No co-owner can be forced to stay in a co-ownership, and any of them may demand partition of their own share at any time. Owners may agree to keep the property undivided for up to ten years (renewable), a donor or testator may forbid partition for up to twenty years, and the law may also bar it. Prescription does not run between co-owners while the co-ownership is recognized.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Gregorio Favor v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held: Partially affirmed the CA: the Compromise Agreement is a valid partition under Article 1082 with no fraud shown, but two parcels remain in co-ownership and are remanded for partition under Articles 494 and 1083.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Cases applying this article
- Pedro Generosa v. Pacita Prangan-Valera G.R. No. 166521
- Reynaldo Reyes v. Sps. Wilfredo G.R. No. 225159
- Marites Mercado Linaac v. Heirs of Restituto Mercado G.R. No. 215808
- Felicidad B. Dadizon v. Carmelita Tan-Inchoco G.R. No. 248594
- Antipolo Ining (Deceased) v. Leonardo R. Vega G.R. No. 174727
- Mercedes Cristobal Cruz v. Eufrosina Cristobal G.R. No. 140422
- Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 118464
- Gregorio Favor v. The Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80821
Other Supreme Court decisions also apply this article.