A legal article in the Philippine context

1) The situation in one sentence

In Philippine law, inherited property is typically co-owned by the heirs until the estate is settled and partitioned; no single heir (and not even a majority) can validly sell the entire property without the consent/signature of all co-owners, but any heir may (a) sell only his/her undivided share, or (b) force partition through court, which can result in a court-ordered sale and division of proceeds.

2) The legal foundation: succession + co-ownership

A. Ownership transfers at death, but the property becomes “undivided”

Upon death, the decedent’s rights and property pass to heirs by operation of law (subject to debts and settlement). However, until partition, the heirs do not own specific physical portions; they own ideal or undivided shares.

B. Co-ownership is the default status of inherited property

Under the Civil Code rules on co-ownership, each co-owner:

owns an aliquot (ideal) share of the whole,
may use the property in proportion to share without excluding others, and
cannot unilaterally dispose of the entire thing as if sole owner.

3) Why one refusing heir can block a sale of the whole property

A. Sale of the entire property is an act of ownership requiring unanimity

A deed selling the entire inherited property generally requires all co-owners’ consent (i.e., all heirs who are co-owners, plus any surviving spouse if the spouse has an ownership share, and any other co-owners).

If only some heirs sign a deed that purports to sell the entire property:

the deed is effective only to the extent of the sellers’ undivided shares (at most), and
the buyer cannot lawfully acquire what the non-signing heir owns.

B. Practical roadblock: registration and tax clearance

Even if a buyer is willing to “risk it,” transferring real property title in the Philippines usually requires:

estate settlement documents (or a court order),
proof of estate tax compliance and BIR transfer authorization (e.g., eCAR/its current equivalent), and
registry requirements that, as a matter of practice, demand complete heir participation or a judicial decree.

A single heir’s refusal often prevents the paperwork needed to complete a clean title transfer.

4) The crucial distinction: “selling the whole” vs “selling an undivided share”

A. What the cooperative heirs can’t do

They cannot sell and deliver valid ownership of 100% of the inherited property if one heir refuses to join.

B. What the cooperative heirs can do

They may sell only their respective undivided shares. Under the Civil Code, a co-owner may alienate or encumber his/her share, but:

the buyer merely steps into the seller’s shoes as a new co-owner, and
the sale affects only whatever portion may ultimately be allotted to that share upon partition.

Result: the buyer does not automatically get a specific portion of land/house; the buyer gets an ideal share, and must live with co-ownership or pursue partition.

5) The main legal solutions when one heir refuses

Solution 1: Partition (the strongest remedy)

A. No one can be forced to stay in co-ownership

A cornerstone rule: any co-owner may demand partition at any time (subject to limited exceptions). This is the legal “exit” from deadlocked co-ownership.

B. Partition can be:

Extrajudicial partition — requires all heirs’ agreement (not available if one refuses), or
Judicial partition — a court case that does not require the refusing heir’s consent, only proper inclusion and service.

C. What the court can do in a judicial partition case

A partition case (typically under Rule 69, Rules of Court) commonly proceeds in stages:

Determine co-ownership and shares (who the heirs/co-owners are and each share).
Partition in kind (physical division) if feasible.
If division is not feasible or will substantially impair value, the court can order partition by sale (sale of the property, often via public auction or court-approved sale) and divide the proceeds among co-owners according to shares.

Why this matters: even if one heir refuses to sell voluntarily, the law’s partition mechanism can still lead to a sale and cash distribution, ending the stalemate.

Solution 2: Judicial settlement of estate (when the estate is not yet settled, or issues are complex)

If the property is still titled in the decedent’s name and there are complications—such as:

disputed heirship,
possible debts/creditors,
minors/incapacitated heirs,
missing heirs,
unclear property regime (community/conjugal issues),
multiple properties and accounting issues,

then a judicial settlement of estate (Rules on settlement of estates) may be the more appropriate route. The probate/estate court can supervise:

payment of debts/taxes,
determination of heirs,
distribution/partition of assets.

This route is heavier than a straightforward partition case, but it provides structure when “simple extrajudicial settlement” is unsafe or impossible.

Solution 3: Sale of undivided shares to a buyer (with built-in limits and risks)

When the cooperative heirs sell only their shares:

the buyer becomes a co-owner with the refusing heir,
the buyer may later file partition,
the buyer may face legal redemption risks (explained below),
the buyer’s practical enjoyment may be limited if the refusing heir occupies the property.

This route is used when the cooperative heirs need liquidity and accept that the buyer will handle the co-ownership conflict through partition.

Solution 4: Buyout of the refusing heir (purely voluntary)

A buyout is often the cleanest private solution, but it requires the refusing heir’s consent. If the refusal is driven by price distrust, common approaches include:

third-party appraisal as a reference point,
structured payment terms,
a partition plan that awards the refusing heir a specific portion (if the property is divisible).

Legally, however, there is no general mechanism to force a private buyout without court partition leading to a sale.

6) Legal redemption: the “clawback” risk when a share is sold to a stranger

When an heir sells an undivided share to a third person (a “stranger”), Philippine law provides legal redemption rights to protect co-owners/heirs from unwanted outsiders.

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

If a co-heir sells hereditary rights to a stranger before partition, other co-heirs may redeem the rights within one month from written notice of the sale by the selling heir.

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

If a co-owner sells an undivided share to a third person, the other co-owners may have a right of legal redemption, typically exercisable within a short period counted from written notice of the sale.

C. Practical effect

A buyer purchasing only some heirs’ shares must anticipate:

the possibility that another heir redeems the purchased share (buyer gets paid back per legal standards), and/or
delays and disputes about whether notice was properly given.

7) The “estate still in the decedent’s name” problem: settlement first, then sale (usually)

A. Why settlement matters

While heirs acquire rights upon death, real property remains registered in the decedent’s name until transferred through:

extrajudicial settlement (Rule 74) with required formalities, or
court order/judgment in judicial settlement or partition.

B. One heir’s refusal often blocks extrajudicial settlement

Extrajudicial settlement generally requires:

the decedent left no will,
no outstanding debts (or they are settled),
all heirs participate and agree,
required publication and other safeguards.

If one heir refuses to sign, the typical clean path becomes:

judicial settlement and/or judicial partition.

8) Co-ownership “day-to-day” rules that often trigger disputes

A. Possession and use

Each co-owner has the right to use the property in a manner consistent with the rights of others. A co-owner cannot lawfully exclude another co-owner from enjoyment.

B. Expenses, taxes, preservation

Co-owners generally must contribute proportionately to:

necessary expenses for preservation,
real property taxes and essential charges.

C. Improvements and rentals

Issues often arise when:

one heir occupies the property exclusively,
one heir collects rent without sharing,
improvements are made by one heir.

Courts can order accounting and adjust equities during partition (e.g., reimbursements, credits, sharing of fruits/income), depending on facts and good/bad faith.

9) When the refusing heir is a special case

A. Refusing heir is abroad

Participation may be done via a properly executed Special Power of Attorney, with authentication formalities if executed overseas. If refusal is absolute, SPA won’t solve it; judicial routes remain.

B. Refusing heir is a minor or incapacitated

If an heir is a minor/incapacitated, transactions and partition steps often require stronger safeguards, sometimes court authority through guardianship mechanisms. Many registries and institutions are strict in these situations.

C. Refusing heir is “missing” or cannot be located

A missing heir can make extrajudicial settlement unsafe. Court processes are often used to ensure due process, proper notice, and protection of interests.

D. The surviving spouse’s share complicates matters

If the property is part of community/conjugal property, the surviving spouse typically owns a portion outright (not inherited). Any sale/partition must respect:

liquidation of the property regime, and
the spouse’s ownership share plus inheritance share (if the spouse is also an heir).

10) Tax and transfer realities (high-level)

Even when the legal path is clear, transfers are gated by compliance steps. Commonly encountered layers include:

estate tax compliance before transferring inherited real property,
tax rules triggered by sale after inheritance (separate from estate tax),
local transfer taxes and registry fees,
BIR/registry documentary requirements that differ by transaction structure (sale of hereditary rights, sale of undivided share, settlement-with-sale, etc.).

Poor structuring (e.g., using “waivers” that function as sales/donations) can create unexpected tax consequences and registration problems.

11) Practical outcomes: what each path usually produces

Path A: All heirs sign (best-case)

Extrajudicial settlement → transfer to heirs (or settlement-with-sale) → clean sale → clean title transfer.

Path B: One heir refuses, others want to sell

Cannot sell the whole privately.
Choices narrow to:
1. Judicial partition (often leads to partition in kind or court-ordered sale), or
2. Sell only consenting heirs’ shares (buyer becomes co-owner; redemption risk; partition later).

Path C: One heir refuses and occupies the property

Judicial partition with accounting issues is common; court may address occupancy, fruits/rent, reimbursements, and then partition/sale.

12) Key takeaways (Philippine doctrine in action)

Inherited property is co-owned until partition.
Selling the entire property requires all co-owners’ consent; one heir can block a voluntary whole-property sale.
Any heir may sell only his/her undivided share, but the buyer becomes a co-owner and may need to pursue partition.
Any co-owner may compel partition in court, and if the property can’t be fairly divided, the court can order a sale and division of proceeds, ending the deadlock.
Legal redemption rights can allow co-heirs/co-owners to redeem a share sold to a stranger within strict notice-based periods.
For real property, tax and registry compliance heavily shapes what is practically possible and how quickly ownership can be transferred.