Legal Guardian: When one of the spouse is incapacitated –

Sole Administration
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
contract implementing such decision.

“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.