Let us imagine a situation which, unfortunately, is quite common in Spain: several people share ownership of a family home, but cannot agree on what to do with it. Some want to sell it, others prefer to wait, and in the meantime the property remains in limbo.
Judgment No. 67/2026 of 26 January by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court addresses precisely this problem and resolves it with a clear rule: no one can be forced to remain a co-owner of a property indefinitely. This is expressly recognised in Article 400 of the Civil Code, regardless of whether any of the co-owners have unresolved inheritance issues.
Background
The case before the Supreme Court concerns a family home in Ávila, the ownership of which was divided into two halves. On the one hand, four people (three siblings and a relative) owned 50 per cent of the property as a result of two gifts formalised by public deeds executed in 2011 and 2014. They were, therefore, legitimate owners with a right that was fully documented and registered in the Land Registry.
On the other hand, the remaining 50 per cent was registered in the name of another relative who had died in 1988. His three heirs never formally divided the estate, meaning that almost three decades had passed without anyone processing its partition. Consequently, half of the property formed part of the undistributed estate; in other words, it was part of an estate with no specific owner, awaiting the heirs’ decision on how to divide it.
To complicate matters further, one of the four co-owners of the first half, in addition to her 10 per cent received as a gift, had received a bequest of 12.5 per cent of the house from one of the deceased’s heirs. That small additional percentage was indeed linked to the undivided estate.
The four co-owners, fed up with the situation, brought a claim seeking an end to the co-ownership and for the house to be sold at public auction, with the proceeds distributed according to each party’s share. The court of first instance ruled in their favour. However, the Provincial Court of Ávila overturned the ruling, holding that, as one of the co-heirs had that small percentage linked to the estate, the plaintiffs’ standing to seek the division had not been established. In practice, this meant that the inaction of some heirs, who had done nothing for decades, was blocking the other owners, preventing them from exercising the right granted to them under Article 400 of the Civil Code.
The Chamber’s decision and its key points
The Supreme Court upheld the appeal lodged by the four co-owners, quashed the judgment of the Provincial Court and confirmed that of the court of first instance, which had ruled in favour of the claimants.
The Chamber’s reasoning is based on Article 400 of the Civil Code, which provides that ‘no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership’ and that any co-owner may, at any time, request the division of the common property. The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle already established in previous judgements, in particular Supreme Court Judgements (SSTS) of the Civil Chamber Nos. 160/2016 and 125/2016, but applied it to a scenario which it had not previously addressed with such clarity: that in which a single property is subject to both an ordinary co-ownership, that of the donors; and a community of heirs, comprising the undivided estate of the deceased.
The Court’s conclusion is unequivocal: the death of a co-owner and the succession proceedings arising therefrom cannot restrict or override the right of the remaining co-owners to request partition. In other words, the fact that there is a pending inheritance regarding the other half does not prevent those who are the legitimate owners of their share from requesting to be released from joint ownership. The Court adds, in a practical vein, that the rights of the future heirs are safeguarded when the estate is finally distributed; those who are awarded a share will be entitled to their proportion of the proceeds of the sale.
Furthermore, the judgement also clarifies another potential point of uncertainty: can legal proceedings be brought against an estate that has not yet been distributed? The Supreme Court’s answer to this question is also clear: an undistributed estate has the capacity to be sued and to appear in court through the heirs who administer it, and may therefore also be a defendant in legal proceedings.
The practical implications of this ruling are considerable. In Spain, there are hundreds of properties in a situation of mixed co-ownership where owners with their own title deeds coexist with shares tied up in estates that nobody is processing, sometimes for generations. Disagreement amongst some heirs often paralyses the other co-owners, who are forced to maintain the co-ownership indefinitely. However, the legal principle established by Supreme Court Judgment 67/2026 allows owners of a property who hold a ‘clear’ title not to have to wait for others to resolve their inheritance matters in order to exercise their right to withdraw from the joint ownership.
