1) The starting point: what happens to property at death

Under Philippine law, ownership and possession rights over the estate begin to transmit to heirs from the moment of death (Civil Code, Art. 777). Until the estate is partitioned, the heirs generally hold the estate in co-ownership—each heir owns an ideal (undivided) share, not a physically identified portion.

This “undivided share” framework drives nearly everything about eviction: a person who is a co-owner typically cannot be treated as a mere intruder who can be summarily ejected by another co-owner.

2) Co-ownership basics that control “eviction” outcomes

A. Each co-owner has a right to possess the whole (subject to the same right of others)

In a co-ownership, each co-owner may use and enjoy the property in a manner consistent with the co-ownership, as long as it does not prejudice the rights of the other co-owners (Civil Code, Art. 486 and related provisions). Practically:

No co-owner has the right to exclude the others from the property without partition or a clear legal basis.
A co-owner cannot demand that another co-owner “move out” simply because one co-owner wants exclusive possession.

B. A co-owner may dispose of (sell/assign) only an undivided share

A co-owner may sell, assign, or mortgage his/her ideal share (Civil Code, Art. 493). What the buyer receives is:

the seller’s ideal share, and
the seller’s position in the co-ownership,

not a specific bedroom, floor, lot corner, or defined portion—unless and until partition happens.

3) What exactly is being sold: hereditary rights vs. a co-owned share

Inherited property often sits in a “pre-partition” stage. In that stage, what’s commonly sold is either:

Hereditary rights (a share in the inheritance/estate before partition), or
An undivided share in a specific property already recognized as co-owned.

The difference matters because the Civil Code contains two closely related redemption rules:

Legal redemption among co-heirs (Art. 1088): applies when a co-heir sells hereditary rights to a stranger before partition.
Legal redemption among co-owners (Art. 1620): applies when a co-owner sells an undivided share in a co-owned thing to a stranger.

In many estate scenarios, both ideas are discussed, but the controlling rule depends on how the transaction is structured and how the property is held/documented at that time.

4) The core eviction rule: a buyer of a co-heir’s share generally cannot evict the other heirs (and vice versa)

A. If the occupant is a co-heir/co-owner

If the person in possession is a co-heir (therefore a co-owner), then:

The purchaser of a co-heir’s share steps into the shoes of the seller and becomes a co-owner.
As a co-owner, the purchaser typically has no automatic right to evict another co-owner, because each co-owner has a right to possess the property, subject to the equal rights of others.

Bottom line: Buying one heir’s share does not convert the other heirs into illegal occupants.

B. “Eviction” becomes possible only after a legal change in the possessory relationship

Removal of an occupying heir/co-owner usually becomes legally viable only if one of these happens:

Partition (voluntary or judicial) assigns a definite portion to the buyer or to certain heirs; and the occupying party refuses to respect the partition; or
There is a clear repudiation of co-ownership and the facts support an action based on a superior right of possession/ownership (this is fact-intensive and not presumed); or
There is a binding agreement among co-owners governing possession (e.g., exclusive possession to one co-owner with rent), and it is violated; or
The occupant is not actually a co-owner (see next section).

5) If the occupant is NOT a co-owner (e.g., a stranger, informal settler, borrower of permission)

Different rules apply if the person in possession is a non-owner:

A. Strangers can be ejected by co-owners (with proper authority)

A co-owner may generally act to protect the property against strangers. However, where multiple co-owners exist, courts often scrutinize whether one co-owner is acting for the benefit of the co-ownership and whether indispensable parties are joined depending on the action.

B. If the occupant claims right from one co-owner (permission/lease)

If a non-owner occupies because one heir allowed it:

That permission generally cannot prejudice the rights of the other co-owners.
The other co-owners may challenge the occupancy, but outcomes can depend on whether the occupancy is a true lease, the terms, and whether rent laws apply.

C. If there is a tenant relationship

If the occupant is a tenant under a lease, eviction is governed by lease terms and applicable laws (and cannot be done simply because ownership shares changed hands). A buyer generally takes subject to existing lawful leases, depending on circumstances.

6) The proper remedies: partition, accounting, and damages—more than “ejectment”

Because co-ownership is the central issue, the most common lawful solutions are:

A. Partition (the main exit hatch)

Any co-owner may demand partition (Civil Code, Art. 494, subject to limited exceptions). Partition may be:

Extrajudicial/voluntary (agreement among heirs/co-owners), or
Judicial (filed in court when there’s no agreement).

Once partition happens, the assigned owner can enforce the result, and exclusive possession becomes legally clearer.

B. Accounting / reimbursement / rents (useful when one co-owner occupies exclusively)

If one co-owner enjoys exclusive use and excludes the others (or effectively deprives them), other co-owners may seek:

Accounting of fruits/income (Civil Code principles on co-ownership; see also obligations to share benefits), and/or
Reasonable compensation in appropriate cases, especially when exclusive possession is coupled with exclusion or bad faith.

C. Injunction or other provisional remedies

Where there is harassment, waste, or threatened illegal dispossession, parties sometimes pursue injunctive relief to maintain the status quo pending partition or main case resolution.

7) Ejectment cases: why they often fail between co-owners

Philippine “eviction” in practice often means ejectment (forcible entry or unlawful detainer) under the Rules of Court. Ejectment is designed for possession issues, usually against someone who has no right to possess.

A. Forcible entry / unlawful detainer basics (in brief)

Forcible entry: possession was taken by force/intimidation/threat/strategy/stealth; must generally be filed within 1 year from dispossession.
Unlawful detainer: possession was originally lawful (e.g., by tolerance or lease) but became illegal when the right ended; also generally within 1 year from last demand to vacate or from unlawful withholding as framed by case law.

B. Why ejectment is tricky between co-owners

Between co-owners, possession is typically not “illegal” in the way ejectment contemplates. Courts often require more than mere co-ownership disputes to allow ejectment. Common reasons an ejectment case fails in co-ownership settings include:

The defendant is also a co-owner (or plausibly claims to be), so possession is not per se unlawful.
The dispute is really about ownership and partition, not the summary issue of physical possession.
There is no clear showing of a right to exclusive possession in the plaintiff.

C. When an ejectment theory might still work

An ejectment-type approach becomes more plausible if:

The defendant is a stranger to the co-ownership; or
The defendant’s co-ownership claim is clearly baseless; or
There is strong proof of repudiation/ousting that changed the nature of possession (highly fact-dependent).

8) Legal redemption rights of the remaining heirs/co-owners (powerful tool against “strangers”)

A common fear is: “A stranger bought my sibling’s share—can that stranger kick everyone out?” Usually, the bigger immediate issue is: “Can the family redeem the share and keep the stranger out?”

A. Redemption among co-heirs (Civil Code, Art. 1088)

If a co-heir sells hereditary rights to a stranger before partition, any or all of the other co-heirs may redeem the rights within one month from written notice of the sale from the seller (not mere rumor or informal knowledge).

Key points:

The one-month period generally runs from written notice by the seller.
Redemption price is typically the purchase price plus certain lawful expenses consistent with Civil Code principles.

B. Redemption among co-owners (Civil Code, Art. 1620)

If a co-owner sells an undivided share in the co-owned property to a stranger, other co-owners have a similar legal redemption right, also typically within one month from written notice by the seller.

C. If multiple co-heirs/co-owners want to redeem

If two or more seek to redeem, the general principle is redemption in proportion to their shares, to prevent unfair concentration unless otherwise allowed by law and circumstances.

D. Sales designed to evade redemption

Transactions styled as “donations” or other forms may be scrutinized if they are actually sales in substance. The enforceability of redemption in disguised transfers depends on proof and the nature of the transaction.

9) What a buyer of a co-heir’s share actually gets (and what the buyer doesn’t)

A. What the buyer gets

Co-ownership status (or the seller’s hereditary position), and
The right to demand partition, participate in administration/settlement processes as appropriate, and share in fruits/benefits proportionate to the acquired share.

B. What the buyer does NOT automatically get

A right to exclusive possession of the entire property,
A right to evict co-heirs merely because the buyer now owns an ideal share,
A right to occupy a specific physical portion unless agreed or partitioned.

10) “Eviction” in sale law (warranty against eviction) vs. ejectment eviction—do not confuse them

Philippine law also uses “eviction” in the Civil Code’s law on sales: warranty against eviction (e.g., Arts. 1548 onwards). That meaning is different from physically removing someone from a house.

In brief:

Warranty against eviction concerns the buyer being deprived of the whole or part of the thing purchased by a final judgment based on a right prior to the sale.
In estate-share purchases, buyers often face limitations because what is sold is an ideal share or inheritance rights, not a clearly bounded parcel. The seller’s warranty can be shaped by the nature of what was sold (e.g., sale of inheritance/hereditary rights concepts in the Civil Code).

This matters because a buyer who later loses what they thought they bought might pursue seller liability—not because they can evict co-heirs, but because they may have bought a problematic right.

11) Common real-world scenarios and the likely legal posture

Scenario 1: One heir sells “his share” to a stranger; other heirs live in the house

The buyer becomes a co-owner.
The buyer generally cannot evict the heirs living there simply by virtue of the purchase.
The buyer may push for partition or negotiated buy-out; the heirs may pursue redemption if available and timely.

Scenario 2: One heir sells and the buyer moves in and tries to take over

The buyer can use the property as a co-owner, but cannot lawfully exclude other co-owners.
If the buyer uses force or intimidation, co-heirs may seek appropriate civil/criminal remedies and protective relief, depending on facts.

Scenario 3: The occupying person is a non-heir allowed by one heir

Other heirs may contest the occupancy.
If it is mere tolerance, removal is more feasible; if a lease exists, the lease framework matters.

Scenario 4: One heir sold the “entire property” without authority from other heirs

The sale is generally effective only as to the seller’s ideal share; buyer typically becomes co-owner to that extent, rather than sole owner of the whole.

12) Procedure and forum realities (high-level)

When disputes escalate, cases commonly fall into:

Partition (to end co-ownership and define portions), and/or
Possessory actions (ejectment, accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria) depending on duration and nature of dispossession and whether ownership must be resolved.

Many property disputes among neighbors/relatives also implicate barangay conciliation requirements under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law before filing in court, subject to exceptions.

13) Practical legal takeaways in Philippine doctrine

A co-heir’s buyer is usually a co-owner, not a landlord—and co-ownership does not automatically create eviction power against other co-owners.
The clean legal path to exclusive possession is usually partition, not ejectment.
If the buyer is a stranger, remaining heirs/co-owners should immediately evaluate legal redemption rights (Art. 1088 / Art. 1620) and the strict one-month-from-written-notice rule.
If one party is occupying exclusively, the remedy is often accounting/compensation and partition, rather than “kick-out” litigation—unless the occupant is a stranger or there is clear unlawful dispossession.
Labels in a deed (“I sell the whole property”) do not override the legal reality of co-ownership; substance and the seller’s rights limit what the buyer acquires.