Explanation of Article 627
The article addresses judicial partition in cases where an amicable partition among partners is not possible. It establishes that the default is not to compel partners to remain in co-ownership, as it is likely to lead to frequent disputes among partners. Therefore, any partner wishing to exit the co-ownership has the right to request judicial partition. However, the article exempts three cases from this default where a partner is compelled to remain in co-ownership. These cases are:
The first case is when there is an agreement among the partners to remain in co-ownership for a specified period, in which case partition cannot be requested before the expiration of this period. This agreement applies to the successor of the partner, whether the successor is general or specific, even if the successor is unaware of the agreement, as ruling otherwise would harm others.
The second case is when there is a statutory provision requiring remaining in co-ownership.
The third case: is when it is evident from the purpose for which the property is designated that it must always remain in co-ownership, such as the common parts in the ownership of real estate units.
Related To
Article 627
An owner who wishes to receive his share in a property owned in common may demand a judicial partition, provided that there is no agreement or legal provision that precludes such partition or that the intended purpose of the property does not require that it remains owned in common.