Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: This is an appeal via certiorari from the decision of CA and its resolution
denying reconsideration reversing that of the RTC declaring void the special
proceedings instituted therein by petitioners to authorize petitioner Gilda Jardeleza
in view of the comatose condition of her husband, Ernesto Jardeleza Sr., with
approval of the court, to dispose of their conjugal property in favor of co-petitioners,
their daughter and son-in-law, for the ostensible purpose of “financial need in the
personal, business and medical expenses of her ‘incapacitated’ husband”
• March 25, 1991 – Ernesto Jardeleza suffered a stroke which left him comatose
and incapable of motor and mental functions.
• June 6, 1991 – Teodoro Jardeleza, Ernesto’s son, filed a petition for
guardianship of his father. He averred that due to Ernesto’s current
condition, he cannot competently administer his properties. In order to
prevent the loss and wasteful expenditure of Jardelezas’ real and personal
assets, there was a need for a court-appointed guardian to administer said
properties. He prayed that the guardianship be issued in favor of the wife
and that in the meantime, no property be negotiated, mortgaged or
alienated to third persons
• June 13, 1991 – The wife filed a petition declaring the incapacity of the
husband and assumption of sole powers of administration of conjugal
properties and prayed for authorization from the court to sell a parcel of land
(lot no. 4291) due pay for medical expenses of the husband
• June 20, 1991 – RTC rendered a decision in favor of the wife’s petition
pursuant to Art. 124 FC; that the wife is the sole administrator due to the
husband’s incapacity and authorize the sale of the lot in question to pay
medical bills
• Son Teodoro opposed petition; assumption of sole administratorship and
authority to sell conjugal properties is essentially a petition for guardianship
of person and properties of Ernesto and as such it cannot be proceeded in
accordance with Art. 253 FC. It should follow the rules on special proceedings
set in ROC. Also, under NCC, Ernesto acquired vested rights as a conjugal
partner and such rights cannot be impaired or prejudiced without his consent.
• Teodoro filed motion for reconsideration on the following grounds:
1. CPG has other assets to pay off financial obligations.
2. Medical bills can be offset since Ernesto can pay on installment since
he has stocks in the hospital
3. Two of his attending physicians are his own sons who are not charging
him anything
• While motion for reconsideration was pending, the wife sold the said property
to daughter (Glenda Uy) for P 8M. July 23, 1991, the wife filed an urgent ex-
parte motion for approval of the deed of absolute sale
• December 19, 1991 – RTC denied Teodoro’s motion for reconsideration and
approved the wife’s motion for approval of the deed of absolute sale citing
that Teodoro does not have the personality to oppose the petition since the
property belongs to CPG and both spouses are still alive
• December 9, 1992 – CA reversed RTC decision and ordered RTC to declare
sale VOID.
ISSUE: Due to the comatose condition of the husband, can the wife assume sole
powers of administration over conjugal properties and dispose of a parcel of land
with the approval for the court?
HELD: CA ruled that due to the condition of the husband, the rules on summary
proceedings in relation to Art. 124 FC are not applicable. What Art. 124 covers are
situations where the spouse is absent, or separated in fact or has abandoned the
other, or the 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 such case, the proper remedy is a judicial
guardianship under Rule 93 of 1964 ROC.
Even if the rules of summary judicial proceedings under FC applied to the wife’s
administrative powers, the wife who assumes the sole powers of administration has
the same powers and duties as a guardian under the ROC
A spouse who desires to sell a real property as such administrator of CPG must
observe the procedure for the sale of the ward’s estate required of judicial
guardians under Rule 95 ROC, not summary judicial proceedings under FC
In the present case, RTC did not comply with the procedures under ROC and the
requirements of the summary judicial proceedings under FC: it did not serve notice
of the petition to the incapacitated spouse and it did not require him to show cause
why the petition should not be granted.
ISSUE: Whether or not the wife, pendente lite, can enter into a contract of lease of
a conjugal property without the consent of both spouses
HELD: While the law does indeed grant the spouses joint administration over
conjugal properties under Art. 124 FC, Art. 61 of the same code is to be applied in
the instant case since the legal separation case filed by the wife is still pending.
Pending the appointment of an administrator over the conjugal assets, CA was
justified in allowing the wife to continue with her administration pursuant to Art. 61
FC. This provision states that after a petition for legal separation has been
filed, the trial court shall, in the absence of a written agreement between
the couple, appoint either one of the spouses or a third person to act as
the administrator.
While it is true that no formal designation of the administrator has been made, such
designation was implicit in the decision of the trial court denying the petitioner any
share in the conjugal properties (and thus also disqualifying him as administrator
thereof). That designation was in effect approved by the Court of Appeals when it
issued in favor of the respondent wife the preliminary injunction now under
challenge.
ISSUE: Whether or not the husband can sell a property which is part exclusive and
part conjugal
HELD: Art. 160 NCC provides that “all property of the marriage is presumed to
belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it is proven that it pertains exclusively to
the husband or to the wife.” Lot 7 is an exclusive property of the husband since it
was acquired prior to his marriage with the respondent. However lot 8 was
acquired in 1983 during the marriage of the spouses. There is no evidence proving
that the subject property was acquired through exchange or barter. The
presumption of the conjugal nature of the property subsists in the absence of and
convincing evidence to over come the presumption.
Unlike in the NCC which gives the wife 10 years to annul the alienation or
encumbrance, any alienation or encumbrance under the FC without the consent of
both spouses is NULL AND VOID. Just like in ACP, if the husband, without the
knowledge and consent of the wife, sells conjugal property, the sale is void. If the
sale was with knowledge the not consent of the wife, the wife has 5 years from the
date of the contract to annul the sale.
In the present case, the wife filed within the prescribed period. However, her action
to annul the sale pertains only to the conjugal house and lot which does not include
lot 7 which is an exclusive property of the husband.
The petitioners cannot argue that they were buyers of good faith since they knew
that at the time of the sale, Pedro was married to Mary Ann and her signature did
not appear in the deed. Even if they were to argue that the property is an exclusive
property of the husband, that they proceeded with the sale regardless of the wife’s
contention and that the she was in actual and public possession of the house at the
time of the sale, clearly indicates that they are not purchasers in good faith. CA
DECISION AFFIRMED.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of the properties in question was valid without the
consent of the husband
HELD: The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership (Art. 165 NCC).
Subject to certain exceptions, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real
property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent (Art. 166 NCC). And
the wife cannot bind the conjugal property without the husband’s consent, except in
cases provided by law (Art. 172 NCC)
In the instant case, the wife’s sale is not covered by the phrase “except in cases
provided by law.” THE SALE IS INVALID
Void or voidable? VOIDABLE
According to Art. 1390 NCC, among the voidable contracts are “those where one of
the parties is incapable of giving consent to the contract (Par. 1). The wife had no
capacity to give consent to the contract of the sale. The capacity belonged not to
the husband alone but to both spouses. This is further supported by the
provision that contracts entered by the husband without the consent of the wife
when such consent is required, are annullable at her instance during the marriage
and within 10 years from the transaction questioned (Art. 173 NCC).
The voidable contract of the wife was subject to annulment by her husband only
during the marriage because he was the victim who had an interest in the contract.
The wife, who was the party responsible for the defect, could not ask for
its annulment. Their children could not likewise seek the annulment of the
contract while the marriage subsisted because they merely had an
inchoate right to the lands sold.
The termination of the marriage and the dissolution of the conjugal partnership by
the death of Maximo Aldon did not improve the situation the wife. After the death
of their father, they acquired the right to question the defective contract insofar as
it deprived them of their hereditary rights in their father’s share in the lands. The
father's share is one-half (1/2) of the lands and their share is two-thirds (2/3)
thereof, one-third (1/3) pertaining to the widow.
The Felipes were purchasers of bad faith as revealed in a testimony that sometime
in December 1970, Vicente Felipe (son of the petitioners) attempted to have the
wife (Gimena) sign a ready-made document claiming the sale of the land to them.
If sale was valid, why did they need a document of sale in their favor. Because they
knew the lots still did not belong to them. CA DECISION AFFIRMED. Petitioners are
ordered to give an accounting of the fruits corresponding to the share from 1959.
ISSUE: Whether or not the wife can dispose of the property in question; Whether or
not Cheesman, being an American citizen, can question the sale
HELD: Section 14, Art. XIV of 1973 Constitution provides that: “save in cases of
hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
public domain.”
Thus, assuming that it was his intention that the lot in question be purchased by
him and his wife, he acquired no right whatsoever over the property by virtue of
that purchase; and in attempting to acquire a right or interest in land, he
was knowingly violating the Constitution. As such, the sale to him was null
and void.
At any rate, Cheesman had and has NO CAPACITY TO QUESTION THE SUBSEQUENT
SALE OF THE SAME PROPERTY BY HIS WIFE ON THE THEORY THAT IN SO DOING HE
IS MERELY EXERCISING THE PREROGATIVE OF A HUSBAND IN RESPECT OF
CONJUGAL PROPERTY. To sustain such a theory would permit indirect
controversion of the Constitutional prohibition. If the property were to be
declared conjugal, this would accord to the alien husband a not insubstantial
interest and right over land, as he would then have a decisive vote as to its
transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution does not permit
him to have.
Even if the wife did use conjugal funds to make the acquisition, his recovering and
holding the property cannot be warranted as it is against the constitution.
Consequently, Estelita is a purchaser in good faith since she knew that Thomas
cannot intervene in the sale or disposition of the said property. AFFIRMED
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale made by the husband without the wife’s consent is
void; Whether or not the wife’s petition for the annulment of sale is barred by
prescription
HELD: Under the NCC, although the husband is the administrator of the conjugal
partnership, he cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal
partnership without his wife’s consent, subject only to certain exceptions specified
in the law. The remedy available to the wife in case her husband should dispose of
conjugal property without her consent is stated in Art. 173 NCC.
A sale of property of CPG made by the husband without the consent of his wife is
VOIDABLE. The action for annulment must be brought DURING THE MARRIAGE and
WITHIN 10 YEARS FROM THE QUESTIONED TRANSACTION by the wife.
1 Art. 173. The wife may, during the marriage, and within ten years from the transaction
questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into
without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband
which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property.
Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs, after the dissolution of the
marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. (n)
In the present case, the deed of sale was executed on February 27, 1987. The
husband died on October 13. 1989. But the wife only filed her complaint on March
2, 1990. Although her action was filed with the prescribed period, IT WAS NOT
BROUGHT DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE MARRIAGE which was dissolved upon the
death of the husband. Hence, the action for annulment filed by the wife was barred
for not having been filed on time.
Registration of sale with the Register of Deeds constitutes a notice to the whole
world. Since the deed of sale was registered on March 5, 1987, the wife is
presumed to have constructive notice of the sale form such date. CA DECISION
AFFIRMED.
ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of exchange entered into by the husband without
the wife’s consent is void
HELD: Since the deed was entered into on July 6, 1976 prior to the effectivity of
FC, NCC provisions are applicable. The Macasindig lot was part of Honorio and
Ana’s conjugal properties.
Article 166. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a
spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium, the husband
cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without
the wife’s consent. x x x
Article 173. The wife may, during the marriage, and within ten years from the
transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the
husband entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any
act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in
the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or
her heirs, after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of the
property fraudulently alienated by the husband.
According to Art 166, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of
the CPG without the wife’s consent. This provision must be read in conjunction with
Art. 173. The latter states that an action to annul an alienation or encumbrance
may be instituted by the wife during the marriage and within 10 years from the
transaction questioned. THE LACK OF CONSENT ON HER PART WILL NOT MAKE THE
HUSBAND’S ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE OF REAL PROPERTY OF CPG VOID BUT
MERELY VOIDABLE. Hence, the deed is valid until and unless annulled.
There is evidence that any action to annul the transfer made by Honorio was ever
brought by his wife within 10 years from the transaction questioned. Her right to
bring an action to invalidate the contract has prescribed.
In Papa v Montenegro, the SC explained that the legal prohibition against the
disposition of the conjugal property by the spouse without the consent of the other
has been established NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIRD PERSONS BUT ONLY OF THE
OTHER SPOUSE for whom the law desires to save the conjugal partnership from
damages that might be caused. Vicente, not being the proper party, cannot avail
himself of the remedy prescribed by Art. 173. CA DECISION AFFIRMED.