When co-owners cannot agree on the sale of their property
In such situations, the law provides various remedies to ensure that one or more parties can exit the arrangement fairly or that the property can be sold, even if the co-owners are at an impasse.
Alteration
If the disagreement between co-owners is about whether or not to make alterations to the property, the Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations to the property. This holds true even if the alteration benefits all the co-owners. However, in the event that the refusal to give consent by a co-owner prejudices the common interest of the co-ownership, the other co-owners may go to court to seek an order to approve the act for the benefit of the co-ownership.
Notably, the word “alterations” in the law does not include the sale of the property by the co-owners.
Sale of Co-Owner’s Share
In the event that a co-owner desires to convert their share in the property to cash, they can sell their share in the property to others. However, any sale by a co-owner, without the others, shall be limited to the portion which may be allocated to the co-owner in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Any buyer shall only acquire a share in the whole of the property, but not a definite portion of the property.
When the remaining co-owner does not want to be a co-owner of the property with the buyer, the Civil Code gives the remaining co-owner the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners, or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable price.
Partition and Sale
If a co-owner does not wish to, or is unable to, sell their share in the co-owned property, the Civil Code also provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Accordingly, in the event that co-owners cannot agree, a co-owner may demand the partition of the property, at least insofar as their share is concerned.
There are instances where a co-owned property may have to be sold as a whole. This happens when a property that is co-owned is essentially indivisible, and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them, who shall indemnify the others. In such cases, the property shall be sold, and its proceeds distributed among the co-owners.
Co-owners of properties can run into disputes between or among themselves. These can arise due to differences in personal interests, financial goals, or management preferences.
When they cannot agree on selling the property or no longer wish to remain joint owners, are they essentially stuck at an impasse until all the co-owners can agree?
READ: Rescission and forfeiture of payments
Article continues after this advertisement
ADVERTISING
In such situations, the law provides various remedies to ensure that one or more parties can exit the arrangement fairly or that the property can be sold, even if the co-owners are at an impasse.
Alteration
If the disagreement between co-owners is about whether or not to make alterations to the property, the Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations to the property. This holds true even if the alteration benefits all the co-owners. However, in the event that the refusal to give consent by a co-owner prejudices the common interest of the co-ownership, the other co-owners may go to court to seek an order to approve the act for the benefit of the co-ownership.
Notably, the word “alterations” in the law does not include the sale of the property by the co-owners.
Article continues after this advertisement
Sale of Co-Owner’s Share
In the event that a co-owner desires to convert their share in the property to cash, they can sell their share in the property to others. However, any sale by a co-owner, without the others, shall be limited to the portion which may be allocated to the co-owner in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Any buyer shall only acquire a share in the whole of the property, but not a definite portion of the property.
Article continues after this advertisement
When the remaining co-owner does not want to be a co-owner of the property with the buyer, the Civil Code gives the remaining co-owner the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners, or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable price.
Article continues after this advertisement
50.3K
Escudero: SolGen to comment on SC petition to act on VP impeachment | INQToday
Next
Stay
Partition and Sale
If a co-owner does not wish to, or is unable to, sell their share in the co-owned property, the Civil Code also provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Accordingly, in the event that co-owners cannot agree, a co-owner may demand the partition of the property, at least insofar as their share is concerned.
There are instances where a co-owned property may have to be sold as a whole. This happens when a property that is co-owned is essentially indivisible, and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them, who shall indemnify the others. In such cases, the property shall be sold, and its proceeds distributed among the co-owners.
Article continues after this advertisement
(Articles 493, 494, 498, 491, 1620 Civil Code of the Philippines)
The Supreme Court has resolved several cases on disputes between co-owners, applying the cited provisions of the Civil Code.
The case of Aguilar v. Aguilar involved two brothers, Virgilio and Senen, who purchased a property for their father to live in. Initially, the ownership sharing was 2/3 to Virgilio and 1/3 to Senen. When Senen agreed to live with their father and shoulder the payment of the remaining mortgage over the property, the brothers agreed that they would equally own the property.
When their father died, Virgilio asked Senen to vacate the property as he wanted to sell it. However, the brothers could not agree on the sale, leading Virgilio to file a case in court, where he asked that the Court order the sale of the property and that the proceeds be distributed 2/3 to him and 1/3 to Senen. This sharing was disputed by Senen.
The Court upheld Virgilio’s right to demand the partition of the property, but it also ordered the sale of the property to third parties, with Virgilio and Senen to equally receive the sale proceeds since the brothers could not agree on the share of ownership. (GR 76351, October 29, 1993)
Co-owners of properties can run into disputes between or among themselves. These can arise due to differences in personal interests, financial goals, or management preferences.
When they cannot agree on selling the property or no longer wish to remain joint owners, are they essentially stuck at an impasse until all the co-owners can agree?
READ: Rescission and forfeiture of payments
Article continues after this advertisement
ADVERTISING
In such situations, the law provides various remedies to ensure that one or more parties can exit the arrangement fairly or that the property can be sold, even if the co-owners are at an impasse.
Alteration
If the disagreement between co-owners is about whether or not to make alterations to the property, the Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations to the property. This holds true even if the alteration benefits all the co-owners. However, in the event that the refusal to give consent by a co-owner prejudices the common interest of the co-ownership, the other co-owners may go to court to seek an order to approve the act for the benefit of the co-ownership.
Notably, the word “alterations” in the law does not include the sale of the property by the co-owners.
Article continues after this advertisement
Sale of Co-Owner’s Share
In the event that a co-owner desires to convert their share in the property to cash, they can sell their share in the property to others. However, any sale by a co-owner, without the others, shall be limited to the portion which may be allocated to the co-owner in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Any buyer shall only acquire a share in the whole of the property, but not a definite portion of the property.
Article continues after this advertisement
When the remaining co-owner does not want to be a co-owner of the property with the buyer, the Civil Code gives the remaining co-owner the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners, or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable price.
Article continues after this advertisement
42.8K
Chiz: Impeachment trial possible with court order during Senate break | INQToday
Partition and Sale
If a co-owner does not wish to, or is unable to, sell their share in the co-owned property, the Civil Code also provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Accordingly, in the event that co-owners cannot agree, a co-owner may demand the partition of the property, at least insofar as their share is concerned.
There are instances where a co-owned property may have to be sold as a whole. This happens when a property that is co-owned is essentially indivisible, and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them, who shall indemnify the others. In such cases, the property shall be sold, and its proceeds distributed among the co-owners.
Article continues after this advertisement
(Articles 493, 494, 498, 491, 1620 Civil Code of the Philippines)
The Supreme Court has resolved several cases on disputes between co-owners, applying the cited provisions of the Civil Code.
The case of Aguilar v. Aguilar involved two brothers, Virgilio and Senen, who purchased a property for their father to live in. Initially, the ownership sharing was 2/3 to Virgilio and 1/3 to Senen. When Senen agreed to live with their father and shoulder the payment of the remaining mortgage over the property, the brothers agreed that they would equally own the property.
When their father died, Virgilio asked Senen to vacate the property as he wanted to sell it. However, the brothers could not agree on the sale, leading Virgilio to file a case in court, where he asked that the Court order the sale of the property and that the proceeds be distributed 2/3 to him and 1/3 to Senen. This sharing was disputed by Senen.
The Court upheld Virgilio’s right to demand the partition of the property, but it also ordered the sale of the property to third parties, with Virgilio and Senen to equally receive the sale proceeds since the brothers could not agree on the share of ownership. (GR 76351, October 29, 1993)
Another case involved co-owners of a 96-hectare property in Cavite, which was covered by several certificates of title. The first group of co-owners had agreed to sell their share in the property to a buyer for Php 12.50 per square meter. The second group of co-owners filed a case in court because they objected to the sale, claiming that not only was the property incapable of partition, but also that the selling price was grossly excessive. Accordingly, the second group of co-owners asked to be allowed to exercise their right to purchase the shares of the first group for Php 9.50 per square meter, as provided under Article 1620 of the Civil Code.
The Court declared that Article 1620 of the Civil Code was not applicable because the first group of co-owners had not actually sold their shares but only agreed to sell them to another party.
What was applicable was Article 494 of the Civil Code, which provided for the partition of the property, as it was clear that the co-owners no longer wanted to remain as co-owners of the property.
In this case, the Court finally decided that the property should be sold to third parties at a public sale, with the opening bid starting at Php 12.50 per square meter for the following reasons:
- During the proceedings, the first group admitted that partitioning the property was not economically feasible or advantageous; and
- It became reasonably evident that the parties could not agree on who among them would be allotted the property.
(Zaballero and Francisco v. Luna, et al. GR 56550, October 1, 1990)
- During the proceedings, the first group admitted that partitioning the property was not economically feasible or advantageous; and
- It became reasonably evident that the parties could not agree on who among them would be allotted the property.
(Zaballero and Francisco v. Luna, et al. GR 56550, October 1, 1990)
Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/507052/when-co-owners-cannot-agree-on-the-sale-of-their-property#ixzz90lvBiHh1
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
">
Co-owners of properties can run into disputes between or among themselves. These can arise due to differences in personal interests, financial goals, or management preferences.
When they cannot agree on selling the property or no longer wish to remain joint owners, are they essentially stuck at an impasse until all the co-owners can agree?
Co-owners of properties can run into disputes between or among themselves. These can arise due to differences in personal interests, financial goals, or management preferences.
When they cannot agree on selling the property or no longer wish to remain joint owners, are they essentially stuck at an impasse until all the co-owners can agree?
READ: Rescission and forfeiture of payments
Article continues after this advertisement
ADVERTISING
In such situations, the law provides various remedies to ensure that one or more parties can exit the arrangement fairly or that the property can be sold, even if the co-owners are at an impasse.
Alteration
If the disagreement between co-owners is about whether or not to make alterations to the property, the Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations to the property. This holds true even if the alteration benefits all the co-owners. However, in the event that the refusal to give consent by a co-owner prejudices the common interest of the co-ownership, the other co-owners may go to court to seek an order to approve the act for the benefit of the co-ownership.
Notably, the word “alterations” in the law does not include the sale of the property by the co-owners.
Sale of Co-Owner’s Share
In the event that a co-owner desires to convert their share in the property to cash, they can sell their share in the property to others. However, any sale by a co-owner, without the others, shall be limited to the portion which may be allocated to the co-owner in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Any buyer shall only acquire a share in the whole of the property, but not a definite portion of the property.
When the remaining co-owner does not want to be a co-owner of the property with the buyer, the Civil Code gives the remaining co-owner the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners, or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable price.
Partition and Sale
If a co-owner does not wish to, or is unable to, sell their share in the co-owned property, the Civil Code also provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Accordingly, in the event that co-owners cannot agree, a co-owner may demand the partition of the property, at least insofar as their share is concerned.
There are instances where a co-owned property may have to be sold as a whole. This happens when a property that is co-owned is essentially indivisible, and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them, who shall indemnify the others. In such cases, the property shall be sold, and its proceeds distributed among the co-owners.
Co-owners of properties can run into disputes between or among themselves. These can arise due to differences in personal interests, financial goals, or management preferences.
When they cannot agree on selling the property or no longer wish to remain joint owners, are they essentially stuck at an impasse until all the co-owners can agree?
READ: Rescission and forfeiture of payments
Article continues after this advertisement
ADVERTISING
In such situations, the law provides various remedies to ensure that one or more parties can exit the arrangement fairly or that the property can be sold, even if the co-owners are at an impasse.
Alteration
If the disagreement between co-owners is about whether or not to make alterations to the property, the Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations to the property. This holds true even if the alteration benefits all the co-owners. However, in the event that the refusal to give consent by a co-owner prejudices the common interest of the co-ownership, the other co-owners may go to court to seek an order to approve the act for the benefit of the co-ownership.
Notably, the word “alterations” in the law does not include the sale of the property by the co-owners.
Article continues after this advertisement
Sale of Co-Owner’s Share
In the event that a co-owner desires to convert their share in the property to cash, they can sell their share in the property to others. However, any sale by a co-owner, without the others, shall be limited to the portion which may be allocated to the co-owner in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Any buyer shall only acquire a share in the whole of the property, but not a definite portion of the property.
Article continues after this advertisement
When the remaining co-owner does not want to be a co-owner of the property with the buyer, the Civil Code gives the remaining co-owner the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners, or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable price.
Article continues after this advertisement
50.3K
Escudero: SolGen to comment on SC petition to act on VP impeachment | INQToday
Next
Stay
Partition and Sale
If a co-owner does not wish to, or is unable to, sell their share in the co-owned property, the Civil Code also provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Accordingly, in the event that co-owners cannot agree, a co-owner may demand the partition of the property, at least insofar as their share is concerned.
There are instances where a co-owned property may have to be sold as a whole. This happens when a property that is co-owned is essentially indivisible, and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them, who shall indemnify the others. In such cases, the property shall be sold, and its proceeds distributed among the co-owners.
Article continues after this advertisement
(Articles 493, 494, 498, 491, 1620 Civil Code of the Philippines)
The Supreme Court has resolved several cases on disputes between co-owners, applying the cited provisions of the Civil Code.
The case of Aguilar v. Aguilar involved two brothers, Virgilio and Senen, who purchased a property for their father to live in. Initially, the ownership sharing was 2/3 to Virgilio and 1/3 to Senen. When Senen agreed to live with their father and shoulder the payment of the remaining mortgage over the property, the brothers agreed that they would equally own the property.
When their father died, Virgilio asked Senen to vacate the property as he wanted to sell it. However, the brothers could not agree on the sale, leading Virgilio to file a case in court, where he asked that the Court order the sale of the property and that the proceeds be distributed 2/3 to him and 1/3 to Senen. This sharing was disputed by Senen.
The Court upheld Virgilio’s right to demand the partition of the property, but it also ordered the sale of the property to third parties, with Virgilio and Senen to equally receive the sale proceeds since the brothers could not agree on the share of ownership. (GR 76351, October 29, 1993)
Co-owners of properties can run into disputes between or among themselves. These can arise due to differences in personal interests, financial goals, or management preferences.
When they cannot agree on selling the property or no longer wish to remain joint owners, are they essentially stuck at an impasse until all the co-owners can agree?
READ: Rescission and forfeiture of payments
Article continues after this advertisement
ADVERTISING
In such situations, the law provides various remedies to ensure that one or more parties can exit the arrangement fairly or that the property can be sold, even if the co-owners are at an impasse.
Alteration
If the disagreement between co-owners is about whether or not to make alterations to the property, the Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations to the property. This holds true even if the alteration benefits all the co-owners. However, in the event that the refusal to give consent by a co-owner prejudices the common interest of the co-ownership, the other co-owners may go to court to seek an order to approve the act for the benefit of the co-ownership.
Notably, the word “alterations” in the law does not include the sale of the property by the co-owners.
Article continues after this advertisement
Sale of Co-Owner’s Share
In the event that a co-owner desires to convert their share in the property to cash, they can sell their share in the property to others. However, any sale by a co-owner, without the others, shall be limited to the portion which may be allocated to the co-owner in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Any buyer shall only acquire a share in the whole of the property, but not a definite portion of the property.
Article continues after this advertisement
When the remaining co-owner does not want to be a co-owner of the property with the buyer, the Civil Code gives the remaining co-owner the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners, or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable price.
Article continues after this advertisement
42.8K
Chiz: Impeachment trial possible with court order during Senate break | INQToday
Partition and Sale
If a co-owner does not wish to, or is unable to, sell their share in the co-owned property, the Civil Code also provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Accordingly, in the event that co-owners cannot agree, a co-owner may demand the partition of the property, at least insofar as their share is concerned.
There are instances where a co-owned property may have to be sold as a whole. This happens when a property that is co-owned is essentially indivisible, and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them, who shall indemnify the others. In such cases, the property shall be sold, and its proceeds distributed among the co-owners.
Article continues after this advertisement
(Articles 493, 494, 498, 491, 1620 Civil Code of the Philippines)
The Supreme Court has resolved several cases on disputes between co-owners, applying the cited provisions of the Civil Code.
The case of Aguilar v. Aguilar involved two brothers, Virgilio and Senen, who purchased a property for their father to live in. Initially, the ownership sharing was 2/3 to Virgilio and 1/3 to Senen. When Senen agreed to live with their father and shoulder the payment of the remaining mortgage over the property, the brothers agreed that they would equally own the property.
When their father died, Virgilio asked Senen to vacate the property as he wanted to sell it. However, the brothers could not agree on the sale, leading Virgilio to file a case in court, where he asked that the Court order the sale of the property and that the proceeds be distributed 2/3 to him and 1/3 to Senen. This sharing was disputed by Senen.
The Court upheld Virgilio’s right to demand the partition of the property, but it also ordered the sale of the property to third parties, with Virgilio and Senen to equally receive the sale proceeds since the brothers could not agree on the share of ownership. (GR 76351, October 29, 1993)
Another case involved co-owners of a 96-hectare property in Cavite, which was covered by several certificates of title. The first group of co-owners had agreed to sell their share in the property to a buyer for Php 12.50 per square meter. The second group of co-owners filed a case in court because they objected to the sale, claiming that not only was the property incapable of partition, but also that the selling price was grossly excessive. Accordingly, the second group of co-owners asked to be allowed to exercise their right to purchase the shares of the first group for Php 9.50 per square meter, as provided under Article 1620 of the Civil Code.
The Court declared that Article 1620 of the Civil Code was not applicable because the first group of co-owners had not actually sold their shares but only agreed to sell them to another party.
What was applicable was Article 494 of the Civil Code, which provided for the partition of the property, as it was clear that the co-owners no longer wanted to remain as co-owners of the property.
In this case, the Court finally decided that the property should be sold to third parties at a public sale, with the opening bid starting at Php 12.50 per square meter for the following reasons:
- During the proceedings, the first group admitted that partitioning the property was not economically feasible or advantageous; and
- It became reasonably evident that the parties could not agree on who among them would be allotted the property.
(Zaballero and Francisco v. Luna, et al. GR 56550, October 1, 1990)
- During the proceedings, the first group admitted that partitioning the property was not economically feasible or advantageous; and
- It became reasonably evident that the parties could not agree on who among them would be allotted the property.
(Zaballero and Francisco v. Luna, et al. GR 56550, October 1, 1990)
Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/507052/when-co-owners-cannot-agree-on-the-sale-of-their-property#ixzz90lvBiHh1
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
