Legal Guardian: When one of the spouse is
incapacitated – Sole Administration contract implementing such decision.
Jose Uy vs. Court of Appeals and Teodoro Jardeleza
GR No. 109557. November 29, 2000
Facts:
Dr. Jardeleza suffered a stroke which left him
comatose and depriving him of his mental and physical
capability to act. Upon learning that the real property
he owned is about to be sold, Teodoro filed a petition
for the issuance of the letter of guardianship of his
father. In the petition, he prayed for the issuance of
the letters of guardianship in favor of his mother and
petitioner, Gilda.
Days later, Gilda filed a petition for the
declaration of incapacity of Dr. Jardeleza,
administration of conjugal properties, and authority of
sell the same. In the said petition, she prayed for such
reliefs because of the increasing hospital bills due to
the fact that Dr. Jardeleza is confined in an intensive
care unit (ICU).
Upon the finding of the petition to be in form,
the RTC issued a notice for hearing, which happened
few days after. On the same date of the hearing, the
RTC, upon hearing the witnesses presented by Gilda,
granted such petition. Teodoro filed an Opposition
contending that he was unaware that the case was
already decided. He also filed a Motion for
Reconsideration contending that the proper remedy in
the case is not the petition filed by his mother, but the
petition for guardianship proceedings. As such, the
case cannot be heard under the rules of summary
proceedings as contemplated in Article 253 of the
Family Code. He also noted that the provisions on
summary proceedings, found in Chapter 2 of the
Family Code, comes under the heading on “Separation
in Fact Between Husband and Wife” which
contemplates of a situation where both spouses are of
disposing mind. Thus, he argued that were one spouse
is “comatose without motor and mental faculties,” the
said provisions cannot be made to apply.
Issue: Whether the provision of Article 124 of the
Family Code applies in this case when one of the
spouse is incapacitated to give his consent?
Held:
No. Article 124 of the Family Code provides as
follows:
“ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the
conjugal partnership property shall belong to both
spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the
husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to
the court by the wife for a proper remedy which must
be availed of within five years from the date of the
“In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or
otherwise unable to participate in the administration
of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may
assume sole powers of administration. These powers
do not include the powers of disposition or
encumbrance which must have the authority of the
court or the written consent of the other spouse. In
the absence of such authority or consent, the
disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However,
the transaction shall be construed as a continuing
offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the
third person, and may be perfected as a binding
contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorization by the court before the offer is
withdrawn by either or both offerors. (165a).”
In regular manner, the rules on summary
judicial proceedings under the Family Code govern the
proceedings under Article 124 of the Family Code. The
situation contemplated is one where the spouse is
absent, or separated in fact or has abandoned the
other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained.
Such rules do not apply to cases where the non-
consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to
give consent. In this case, the trial court found that the
subject spouse "is an incompetent" who was in
comatose or semi-comatose condition, a victim of
stroke, cerebrovascular accident, without motor and
mental faculties, and with a diagnosis of brain stem
infarct. In such case, the proper remedy is a judicial
guardianship proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964
Revised Rules of Court.
Even assuming that the rules of summary
judicial proceedings under the Family Code may apply
to the wife's administration of the conjugal property,
the law provides that the wife who assumes sole
powers of administration has the same powers and
duties as a guardian under the Rules of Court.
Consequently, a spouse who desires to sell real
property as such administrator of the conjugal
property must observe the procedure for the sale of
the ward’s estate required of judicial guardians under
Rule 95, 1964 Revised Rules of Court, not the summary
judicial proceedings under the Family Code.
In the case at bar, the trial court did not comply
with the procedure under the Revised Rules of Court.
Indeed, the trial court did not even observe the
requirements of the summary judicial proceedings
under the Family Code. Thus, the trial court did not
serve notice of the petition to the incapacitated
spouse; it did not require him to show cause why the
petition should not be granted.