Article 491 of the Civil Code on Alteration

What is Alteration?

Acts of alteration of a property owned in common are governed by Article 491 of the Civil Code. 1
Article 491 provides that:

“None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in the
thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result therefrom. However,
if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial
to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief. (397a)”

The Court, in the case of “Cruz v. Catapang,2 defined an act of alteration as contemplated by
Article 491 of the Civil Code to wit:

“Alterations include any act of strict dominion or ownership and any encumbrance or
disposition has been held implicitly to be an act of alteration.”

Likewise, Edgardo L. Paras, in his book entitled Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, defined
alteration as a change which:

1. Is more or less permanent;

2. Changes the use of the thing; and
3. Prejudices the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by the others.

It is defined further in his book as an act of ownership which may be material or metaphysical,
and gives rise to a real right over the property.

Requirements of Alteration

As can be gleaned from the law, Article 491 requires the unanimous consent of all the co-
owners in order for an alteration to validly be made. If undertaken with only partial or no consent at all,
then the alteration is illegal. In the case of Cabrera v. Ysaac,3 the Court ruled that “such disposition
requires the unanimous consent of the other co-owners.”

Consequences of Illegal Alteration

In his book entitled Comments and Cases on Civil Law, 4 Eduardo P. Caguioa mentioned the
liability for the undertaking of unauthorized alteration. He said:

“In case any of the co-owners executes an act of alteration without the consent of the
rest then he is liable in damages to the other co-owners and the latter may demand that
the thing done be demolished at the expense of the guilty co-owner. 5”

1
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, [June 18, 1949].
2
Cruz v. Catapang, G.R. No. 164110, [February 12, 2008], 568 PHIL 472-480.
3
Cabrera v. Ysaac, G.R. No. 166790, [November 19, 2014], 747 PHIL 187-216.
4
EDUARDO P. CAGUIOA, COMMENTS AND CASES ON CIVIL LAW CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (1966).
5
3 Manresa, 6th ed., 452
 Edgardo L. Paras in his book entitled Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated 6 made a lengthier
list of consequences saying that the following are the consequences of an illegal alteration:

(a) The co-owner responsible may lose what he has spent;

(b) Demolition can be compelled;
(c) He would be liable for losses and damages;
(d) BUT whatever benefits the co-ownership derives will belong to it.
(e) In case a house is constructed on a common lot, all the co-owners will be entitled to a
proportionate share of the rent7

Examples of Alteration

Jurisprudence has, on occasion, ruled upon which acts constitute an alteration of co-owned
property, and which acts are not. In the case of Cruz v. Catapang,8 where, with the consent of only one
of the two co-owners, a house was built on a portion of a land owned in common, the Court reversed
the decision of the Court of Appeals which held that such acts do not constitute alteration saying:

Under Article 491, none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make
alterations in the thing owned in common. It necessarily follows that none of the co-
owners can, without the consent of the other co-owners, validly consent to the making
of an alteration by another person, such as respondent, in the thing owned in common.
Alterations include any act of strict dominion or ownership and any encumbrance or
disposition has been held implicitly to be an act of alteration. 19 The construction of a
house on the co-owned property is an act of dominion. Therefore, it is an alteration
falling under Article 491 of the Civil Code. There being no consent from all co-owners,
respondent had no right to construct her house on the co-owned property.

The Court here ruled as such since the construction of a house on co-owned property prior to
partition is more or less permanent, it changes the use of the property, and such construction prejudices
the enjoyment of the co-owner who did not consent to the construction of the house.

In the case of Arambulo v. Nolasco9 a definite portion of a co-owned property was sold without
the unanimous consent of all the co-owners to a property. This prompted them to file an action against
the co-owner who sold said portion. In resolving the issue, the Court ruled:

That a sale constitutes an alteration as mentioned in Article 491 is an established

jurisprudence. It is settled that alterations include any act of strict dominion or
ownership and any encumbrance or disposition has been held implicitly to be an act of
alteration. Alienation of the thing by sale of the property is an act of strict dominion.

6
EDGARDO L. PARAS, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED (1981).
7
This was the ruling in Singson et al v. Ch. Veloso et al, a case decided by the Court of appeals cited in the book of
Edgardo Paras.
8
Cruz v. Catapang, G.R. No. 164110, [February 12, 2008], 568 PHIL 472-480.
9
Arambulo v. Nolasco, G.R. No. 189420, [March 26, 2014], 730 PHIL 464-474.
 Here, the Court based this statement upon the commentary of Hector S. De Leon and Hector M.
De Leon Jr. who, in their book entitled Comments and Cases on Property, 10 mention that sale of a
definite portion, or of the entire property constitute an alteration of the co-owned property.

A similar pronouncement was made in the case of Cabrera v. Ysaac11 where the Court resolved a
similar issue to that of Nolasco to wit:

“Specific rules attach when the seller  co-owns  the object of the contract. Sale of a
portion of the property is considered an alteration of the thing owned in common.
Under the Civil Code, such disposition requires the unanimous consent of the other co-
owners.

In his book entitled Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, 12 Edgardo L. Paras likewise
enumerates sale of the entire co-owned property, as well as the sale of a part of the property with
definite boundaries as examples of alteration. He cites the case of Mindanao Academy Inc. et al v.
Ildefonso D. Yap.13 In the aforementioned case, the subject of contention was the sale of the Mindanao
Academy, a co-owned property without the consent of the other co-owners. Here, the Court nullified
the entire sale on two grounds. The first ground was that the seller sold a definite portion of a co-owned
property, in contravention of the provisions of the law; and secondly, the object of the sale is incapable
of division. Nowhere in this case is an alteration mentioned, nor is there mention that sale constitutes
an alteration under Article 491 of the Civil Code.

It should be noted that Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon Jr. do not provide any basis for
saying that sale constitutes an alteration of co-owned property.

10
HECTOR S. DE LEON & HECTOR M. DE LEON JR., COMMENTS AND CASES ON PROPERTY, (2011).
11
Cabrera v. Ysaac, G.R. No. 166790, [November 19, 2014], 747 PHIL 187-216.
12
EDGARDO L. PARAS, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED (1981).
13
Mindanao Academy v. Yap, G.R. Nos. L-17681 & L-17682 , [February 26, 1965], 121 PHIL 204-213.