ARTICLE 124 & 125

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

 SEC. 5 ADMINISTRATION OF CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY

ARTICLE 124. The administration and enjoyment of

the conjugal partnership 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 proper
remedy, which must be availed of within five
years from the date of the contract implementing
such decision.
 ARTICLE 124 (2)

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 disposition or
encumbrance without 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before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.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)
 ACTS OF ADMINISTRATION

A spouse may perform acts of administration alone over

their properties without the consent of the other.

Joint management or administration does not require that

the husband and the wife always act together.

Each spouse may validly exercise full power of

management alone, subject to the intervention of the
court in proper cases as provided in this article.
 ACTS OF ADMINISTRATION

While the husband and wife are joint administrators,

however, the decision of the husband prevails in case of
conflict.

However, the wife has a recourse by going to court to

prevent the implementation of such decision. She must do
so within five (5) years from the date of contract
implementing such decision; otherwise, it would prescribe
and the contract would become binding.
 EFFECT OF DIVORCE

• When the American husband of a Filipina obtains a divorce

pursuant to his national law, he loses his standing to sue as
her husband and can no longer exercise control over the
conjugal assets. He is estopped by his own representation
before said court from asserting his right over the alleged
conjugal party. (Van Dorn vs. Judge Romilli, Jr., 139 SCRA
139)
 HUSBAND, AS ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP,
CANNOT LEASE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE WIFE’S CONSENT

Administration does not include acts of ownership.

For while the husband can administer the conjugal assets

unhampered, he cannot alienate or encumber the conjugal
realty.

Under Art. 166 of NCC "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 the wife's consent..."
 SALE BY THE WIFE OF THE CONJUGAL ASSETS

The sale by the spouse of the conjugal assets without the consent of the
other is void.

Even if the spouse consented in the negotiation, but refused to give

consent in the perfection of the contract, the sale would also be void.

Under the law, any sale, mortgage, encumbrance made by one spouse
without the consent of the other is void, but the law likewise says that it may
be perfected upon acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by
the court.

While as a rule, a void contract cannot be ratified, this is an exception.

Article 5 of the Civil Code supports this law when it provided that "acts
executed against provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void,
except when the law itself authorizes their validity".
 SALE OF PROPERTIES OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP
NEEDS THE CONSENT OF THE SPOUSES; OTHERWISE VOID

The issue in the case of Spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang vs. CA, et al.
(G.R. No. 125172, June 26, 1998, 95 SCAD 264) was the validity of the sale of a
conjugal property by the husband without the wife's consent.

While the wife was in Manila looking for a job, the husband sold the property
in question, hence, the wife questioned the validity of the sale.

The Supreme Court ruled that the sale was void, in accordance with Article
124, as it was done without the wife's consent.

Article 173, NCC provided that the wife may, within 10 years from the
transaction ask for annulment of the sale, but this was not carried over in the
Family Code. Hence, any alienation or encumbrance made after August 3,
1988 is void if it is without the consent of the other spouse.
 REMEDY OF A SPOUSE WHO WANTS TO SELL A PROPERTY
WHEN HER SPOUSE IS INCAPACITATED DUE TO SICKNESS

The law provides that the wife who assumes sole powers of administration
has the powers and duties as a guardian under the Rules of Court. (Rule 93)

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 under judicial guardians under Rule 95 of
the revised Rules of Court (Selling and Encumbering Property of Ward).

The spouse of the incompetent should file a petition for appointment as

guardian over the person and properties of the spouse and following the
rules, file a motion for leave to sell properties pursuant to Rule 95.
 MORTGAGE OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY BY HUSBAND WITHOUT
CONSENT OF THE WIFE IS VOID

The law provides that if there is a sale or encumbrance of a conjugal

property is void if without the consent of the other spouse and the nullity is
total even if we consider the fact that upon the dissolution of the marital
relationship, they would divide the properties equally.

The regime of conjugal property of gains is a special type of partnership.

The husband and the wife place in a common fund the proceeds,
products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those
acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance.

The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the rules on contract of

partnership, so long as it is not in conflict with what is expressly determined in
this chapter (Chapter 4 - Conjugal Partnership of Gains) or by the the
spouses in their marriage settlements.
Case Digest:

G.R. No. 92245 June 26, 1991

MELANIA A. ROXAS, petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO M.
CAYETANO, respondents.

PONENTE: Paras, J.