Uy vs. Court of Appeals

The summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code do not apply when the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent; the proper remedy is judicial guardianship under the Rules of Court. The Court ruled that because the husband was comatose, the wife could not invoke Article 124 through summary proceedings to sell conjugal property. Even if summary proceedings were applicable, the wife, acting as sole administrator, has the powers and duties of a guardian and must observe the procedure for the sale of a ward's estate. A decision rendered without notice to the incapacitated spouse is void for lack of due process.

Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. suffered a stroke on March 25, 1991, leaving him comatose and bereft of motor or mental faculties. His wife, Gilda L. Jardeleza, sought to sell a valuable piece of conjugal property (Lot No. 4291) to defray his mounting medical expenses. Their son, Teodoro L. Jardeleza, opposed the sale, arguing that the property had high market and sentimental value, the conjugal partnership possessed other liquid assets to pay the bills, and the proposed sale price was disadvantageous.

• Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.'s Incapacity: On March 25, 1991, Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. suffered a stroke, rendering him comatose, without motor or mental faculties, and diagnosed with brain stem infarct.
• Petition for Guardianship: On June 6, 1991, his son Teodoro filed a petition for guardianship (Spec. Proc. No. 4689) before RTC Iloilo Branch 25, seeking the appointment of Gilda as guardian and a restraining order against the alienation of conjugal properties.
• Petition for Assumption of Administration: On June 13, 1991, Gilda filed a separate petition (Spec. Proc. No. 4691) before RTC Iloilo Branch 32, seeking to assume sole administration of conjugal properties and authorization to sell Lot No. 4291 to pay for medical expenses.
• RTC Branch 32 Decision: On June 20, 1991, after a hearing attended by Gilda, her counsel, two of her children, and an attending physician, RTC Branch 32 declared Ernesto incapacitated, authorized Gilda to assume sole administration, and authorized the sale of the property under Articles 124 and 253 of the Family Code.
• Opposition and Sale: Teodoro filed an opposition and a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the petition was essentially for guardianship and required procedural due process. Pending resolution of his motion, Gilda sold the property to her daughter and son-in-law (spouses Uy) for P8,000,000 on July 8, 1991.
• Approval of Sale: On December 19, 1991, RTC Branch 28 denied Teodoro's motion and approved the deed of absolute sale, holding that Teodoro lacked personality to oppose the petition and that summary proceedings were properly observed.
• Court of Appeals Ruling: The CA reversed the RTC, holding that summary proceedings under the Family Code do not apply to an incompetent spouse and that judicial guardianship was the proper remedy. The CA declared the special proceedings and the deed of sale void.

• Petitioners maintained that under Article 124 of the Family Code, a spouse who is unable to participate in the administration of conjugal properties allows the other spouse to assume sole powers of administration.
• Petitioners argued that the trial court properly observed the procedure under Article 253 of the Family Code in rendering its decision authorizing the sale.

• Respondent countered that the petition for declaration of incapacity and authority to sell was essentially a petition for guardianship, requiring procedural due process under the Rules of Court rather than summary proceedings.
• Respondent argued that summary proceedings under the Family Code apply only when spouses are of disposing mind but separated in fact.
• Respondent contended that the trial court failed to notify the incapacitated spouse, violating due process.
• Respondent asserted that the sale was disadvantageous to the conjugal partnership given the property's market value of P12,000,000 to P15,000,000 compared to the P8,000,000 sale price, and that the conjugal partnership possessed other liquid assets to pay medical expenses.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code apply when the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent, or whether judicial guardianship proceedings under the Rules of Court are required.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a spouse assuming sole administration of conjugal property under Article 124 of the Family Code may dispose of real property through court authorization in summary proceedings without complying with the rules on guardianship and sale of a ward's estate.
  • Whether the trial court's order authorizing the sale is void for lack of due process.

• Procedural: The Court ruled that summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code do not apply when the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent. The situation contemplated by summary proceedings involves an absent, separated in fact, or abandoning spouse, or one who withholds consent but is otherwise competent. When a spouse is comatose or incompetent, the proper remedy is judicial guardianship under Rule 93 of the Rules of Court. Because the trial court failed to serve notice of the petition to the incapacitated spouse and did not require him to show cause, the decision was rendered without due process and is void ab initio.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that even assuming summary proceedings apply, a spouse assuming sole administration under Article 124 has the same powers and duties as a guardian under Article 61 of the Family Code. Consequently, the sale of real property requires compliance with the procedure for the sale of a ward's estate under Rule 95 of the Rules of Court. The trial court failed to observe both the Rules of Court and the requirements of summary proceedings. The sale to the spouse's daughter and son-in-law was thus unauthorized and void.

• Summary Proceedings vs. Guardianship for Incapacitated Spouse — Summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code (Art. 253) apply only when the non-consenting spouse is absent, separated in fact, or has abandoned the other, or when consent is withheld but the spouse is competent. When the spouse is incapacitated or incompetent (e.g., comatose), the proper remedy is judicial guardianship under the Rules of Court.
• Powers of Sole Administrator under Art. 124 — A spouse who assumes sole powers of administration of conjugal partnership property under Article 124 of the Family Code has the same powers and duties as a guardian under the Rules of Court (Art. 61, Family Code). Thus, the disposition of real property must comply with the rules on the sale of a ward's estate (Rule 95, Rules of Court).
• Void Judgments for Lack of Due Process — A decision rendered without due process, such as where a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard, is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally at any time.

• "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."
• "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."
• "A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally."

• DBP v. Bautista, 135 Phil. 201 (1968) — Cited for the doctrine that denial of due process casts on the official act the impress of nullity.
• David v. Aquilizan, 94 SCRA 707 (1979) — Cited for the rule that a decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally.
• The Summary Dismissal Board etc. v. Torcita, G.R. No. 130442 (April 6, 2000) — Cited for the proposition that a decision is void for lack of due process if a party is deprived of the opportunity of being heard.
• Ang Lam v. Rosillosa, 86 Phil. 447 (1950) — Cited for the rule that a void decision may be assailed at any time directly or collaterally.

• Article 124, Family Code — Governs the administration and enjoyment of conjugal partnership property, providing that if one spouse is incapacitated, the other may assume sole powers of administration, but disposition or encumbrance requires court authority or written consent of the other spouse. Applied to determine the extent of the wife's authority.
• Article 253, Family Code — Governs summary judicial proceedings in the Family Code. The Court held this does not apply to cases where the spouse is incapacitated or incompetent.
• Article 61, Family Code — Provides that a spouse assuming sole administration has the same powers and duties as a guardian under the Rules of Court. Applied to require the wife to follow guardianship procedures for selling property.
• Rule 93, Section 1, 1964 Revised Rules of Court — Governs the appointment of a judicial guardian for an incompetent person. The Court held this is the proper remedy for an incapacitated spouse, not summary proceedings.
• Rule 95, 1964 Revised Rules of Court — Governs the sale of a ward's estate. The Court held that the wife, acting as an administrator with a guardian's powers, must comply with this rule to sell conjugal real property.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.