Compelling the reluctant partner to accept this kind of partition is subject to three conditions: (1) the judge must be satisfied that the property is indeed owned jointly by the litigants; (2) he must ascertain that the division will cause no harm; and (3) he must establish that the shares can be equalized within the asset itself, without the need to add anything extraneous to it.

Once these conditions exist and one partner requests partition, the other is forced to comply, even if he objects, because partition removes the harm inherent in joint ownership and enables each party to dispose of and enjoy his own portion—by planting, building, and the like—activities that are impossible while the property remains undivided.

If one of the partners lacks legal capacity, his guardian effects the partition on his behalf; if he is absent, the judge does so at the request of the present partner.

In essence, this partition merely separates one partner’s right from the other’s; it does not take the legal rulings of a sale, for it differs from a sale in its regulations.

The partners may divide the property themselves, appoint a divider of their own choosing, or ask the judge to appoint one.

Balancing the shares is done by quantity when the asset is uniform—such as commodities measured by volume or weight that do not vary in quality. When the portions differ, the shares are equalized by value: the lot of inferior quality is made larger than that of superior quality. If equalization cannot be achieved by quantity or by value, monetary adjustment is used, whereby whoever receives the inferior or smaller share is given cash by the one who takes the superior or larger share.

Once they have divided the property or drawn lots, the partition becomes binding, for the appointed divider stands in the place of the judge, and the lot functions like the judge’s ruling and must be observed. However they draw lots with pebbles—