246

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals
*

G.R.No.109557.November29,2000.

JOSE UY and his Spouse GLENDA J. UY and GILDA L.

JARDELEZA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
TEODOROL.JARDELEZA,respondents.
Actions; Guardianship; Family Code; Husband and Wife;
Conjugal Partnership; Administration; The situation contemplated
under Article 124 of the Family Code to be governed by summary
judicial proceedings is one where the spouse is absent, or separated
in fact or has abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot
be obtainedsuch rules do not apply to cases where the non
consentingspouseisincapacitatedorincompetenttogiveconsent,in
which case the proper remedy is judicial guardianship proceedings
under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.In regular
manner, the rules on summary judicial proceedings under the
FamilyCodegoverntheproceedingsunderArticle124oftheFamily
Code.Thesituationcontemplatedisonewherethespouseisabsent,
or separated in fact or has abandoned the other or consent is
withheld or cannot be obtained. Such rules do not apply to cases
wherethenonconsentingspouseisincapacitatedorincompetentto
give consent. In this case, the trial court found that the subject
spouse is an incompetent who was in comatose or semicomatose
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
proceedingsunderRule93ofthe1964RevisedRulesofCourt.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A spouse who desires to
sell real property as such administrator of the conjugal property
must observe the procedure for the sale of the wards estate required
of judicial guardians under Rule 95, 1964 Revised Rules of Court,
not the summary judicial proceedings under the Family
Code.Even assuming that the rules of summary judicial
proceedings under the Family Code may apply to the wifes
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
forthesaleofthewardsestaterequiredofjudicialguardiansunder
Rule 95, 1964 Revised Rules of Court, not the summary judicial
proceedingsundertheFamilyCode.
________________
* FIRSTDIVISION.

247

VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000

247

Uy vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Due Process; The doctrine consistently
adhered to by the Supreme Court is that a denial of due process
suffices to cast on the official act taken by whatever branch of the
government the impress of nullity.In the case at bar, the trial
courtdidnotcomplywiththeprocedureundertheRevisedRulesof
Court.Indeed,thetrialcourtdidnotevenobservetherequirements
ofthesummaryjudicialproceedingsundertheFamilyCode.Thus,
the trial court did not serve notice of the petition to the
incapacitatedspouse;itdidnotrequirehimtoshowcausewhythe
petition should not be granted. Hence, we agree with the Court of
Appeals that absent an opportunity to be heard, the decision
rendered by the trial court is void for lack of due process. The
doctrineconsistentlyadheredtobythisCourtisthatadenialofdue
processsufficestocastontheofficialacttakenbywhateverbranch
of the government the impress of nullity. A decision rendered
withoutdueprocessisvoidab initioandmaybeattackeddirectlyor
collaterally.Adecisionisvoidforlackofdueprocessif,asaresult,
a party is deprived of the opportunity of being heard. A void
decisionmaybeassailedorimpugnedatanytimeeitherdirectlyor
collaterally, by means of a separate action, or by resisting such
decisioninanyactionorproceedingwhereitisinvoked.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Jiz, Jiz, Andrada, Gellada & Associatesforpetitioners.
Roco, Buag, Kapunan & Migallos for private
respondentTeodoroJardeleza.
PARDO,J.:
1

Thecaseisanappealviacertiorarifromthedecision ofthe2
CourtofAppealsanditsresolutiondenyingreconsideration
reversing
that of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo, Branch
3
32 and declaring void the special proceedings instituted
therein by petitioners to authorize petitioner Gilda L.
Jardeleza,inviewofthe
________________
1

In CAG.R. SP No. 26936, promulgated on December 09, 1992,

Petition,AnnexR,Rollo,pp.193202.
2Petition,AnnexT,Rollo,pp.233234.
3Ibid.,AnnexC,RTCDecision,Rollo,pp.5556.

248

248

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals

comatoseconditionofherhusband,ErnestoJardeleza,Sr.,
with the approval of the court, to dispose of their conjugal
propertyinfavorofcopetitioners,theirdaughterandsonin
law, for the ostensible purpose of financial need in the
personal, business and medical expenses of her
incapacitatedhusband.
The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as
follows:
This case is a dispute between Teodoro L. Jardeleza (herein
respondent) on the one hand, against his mother Gilda L.
Jardeleza, and sister and brotherinlaw, the spouses Jose Uy and
Glenda Jardeleza (herein petitioners) on the other hand. The
controversy came about as a result of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.s
suffering of a stroke on March 25, 1991, which left him comatose
andbereftofanymotorormentalfaculties.SaidErnestoJardeleza,
Sr. is the father of herein respondent Teodoro Jardeleza and
husbandofhereinprivaterespondentGildaJardeleza.
Upon learning that one piece of real property belonging to the
senior Jardeleza spouses was about to be sold, petitioner Teodoro
Jardeleza, on June 6, 1991, filed a petition (Annex A) before the
R.T.C. of Iloilo City, Branch 25, where it was docketed as Special
Proceeding No. 4689, in the matter of the guardianship of Dr.
Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. The petitioner averred therein that the
presentphysicalandmentalincapacityofDr.ErnestoJardeleza,Sr.
prevent him from competently administering his properties, and in
ordertopreventthelossanddissipationoftheJardelezasrealand
personalassets,therewasaneedforacourtappointedguardianto
administer said properties. It was prayed therein that Letters of
GuardianshipbeissuedinfavorofhereinprivaterespondentGilda
Ledesma Jardeleza, wife of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. It was
further prayed that in the meantime, no property of Dr. Ernesto
Jardeleza, Sr. be negotiated, mortgaged or otherwise alienated to
third persons, particularly Lot No. 4291 and all the improvements
thereon, located along Bonifacio Drive, Iloilo City, and covered by
T.C.T.No.47337.
A few days later, or on June 13, 1991, respondent Gilda L.
JardelezaherselffiledapetitiondocketedasSpecialProceedingNo.
4691, before Branch 32 of the R.T.C. of Iloilo City, regarding the
declaration of incapacity of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., assumption of
sole powers of administration of conjugal properties, and
authorization to sell the same (Annex B). Therein, the petitioner
Gilda L. Jardeleza averred the physical and mental incapacity of
herhusband,whowasthenconfinedforintensivemedicalcareand
treatment at the Iloilo Doctors Hospital. She signified to the court
herdesiretoassumesolepowersofadministrationoftheirconjugal
properties.Shealsoallegedthatherhusbandsmedicaltreatment
249

VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000

249

Uy vs. Court of Appeals

and hospitalization expenses were piling up, accumulating to
severalhundredthousandsofpesosalready.Forthis,sheurgently
needed to sell one piece of real property, specifically Lot No. 4291
anditsimprovements.Thus,sheprayedforauthorizationfromthe
courttosellsaidproperty.
The following day, June 14, 1991, Branch 32 of the R.T.C. of

IloiloCityissuedanOrder(AnnexC)findingthepetitioninSpec.
Proc. No. 4691 to be sufficient in form and substance, and setting
thehearingthereofforJune20,1991.Thescheduledhearingofthe
petition proceeded, attended by therein petitioner Gilda Jardeleza,
her counsel, her two children, namely Ernesto Jardeleza, Jr., and
Glenda Jardeleza Uy, and Dr. Rolando Padilla, one of Ernesto
Jardeleza,Sr.sattendingphysicians.
On that same day, June 20, 1991, Branch 32 of the RTC of
Iloilo City rendered its Decision (Annex D), finding that it was
convinced that Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. was truly incapacitated to
participateintheadministrationoftheconjugalproperties,andthat
the sale of Lot No. 4291 and the improvements thereon was
necessary to defray the mounting expenses for treatment and
Hospitalization. The said court also made the pronouncement that
thepetitionfiledbyGildaL.JardelezawaspursuanttoArticle124
oftheFamilyCode,andthattheproceedingsthereonaregoverned
bytherulesonsummaryproceedingssanctionedunderArticle253
ofthesameCodexxx.
Thesaidcourtthendisposedasfollows:
WHEREFORE,therebeingfactualandlegalbasestothepetitiondated
June13,1991,theCourtherebyrendersjudgmentasfollows:
1) declaring Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., petitioners husband, to be
incapacitated and unable to participate in the administration of
conjugalproperties;
2) authorizingpetitionerGildaL.Jardelezatoassumesolepowers
ofadministrationoftheirconjugalproperties;and
3) authorizing aforesaid petitioner to sell Lot No. 4291 of the
CadastralSurveyofIloilo,situatedinIloiloCityandcoveredby
TCT No. 47337 issued in the names of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.
andGildaL.Jardelezaandthebuildingsstandingthereof.
SOORDERED.

OnJune24,1991,hereinpetitionerTeodoroJardelezafiledhis
OppositiontotheproceedingsbeforeBranch32inSpec.Proc.Case
No. 4691, said petitioner being unaware and not knowing that a
decision has already been rendered on the case by public
respondent.
250

250

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals

OnJuly3,1991,hereinpetitionerTeodoroJardelezafiledamotion
for reconsideration of the judgment in Spec. Proc. No. 4691 and a
motion for consolidation of the two cases (Annex F). He
propounded the argument that the petition for declaration of
incapacity, assumption of sole powers of administration, and
authoritytoselltheconjugalpropertieswasessentiallyapetitionfor
guardianshipofthepersonandpropertiesofErnestoJardeleza,Sr.
As such, it cannot be prosecuted in accordance with the provisions
onsummaryproceedingssetoutinArticle253oftheFamilyCode.
It should follow the rules governing special proceedings in the
Revised Rules of Court which require procedural due process,
particularlytheneedfornoticeandahearingonthemerits.Onthe
otherhand,evenifGildaJardelezaspetitioncanbeprosecutedby

summary proceedings, there was still a failure to comply with the

basic requirements thereof, making the decision in Spec. Proc. No.
4691 a defective one. He further alleged that under the New Civil
Code, Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. had acquired vested rights as a
conjugal partner, and that these rights cannot be impaired or
prejudiced without his consent. Neither can he be deprived of his
share in the conjugal properties through mere summary
proceedings.HethenrestatedhispositionthatSpec.Proc.No.4691
should be consolidated with Spec. Proc. No. 4689 which was filed
earlierandpendingbeforeBranch25.
Teodoro Jardeleza also questioned the propriety of the sale of
LotNo.4291andtheimprovementsthereonsupposedlytopaythe
accumulated financial obligations arising from Ernesto Jardeleza,
Sr.s hospitalization. He alleged that the market value of the
propertywouldbearoundTwelvetoFifteenMillionPesos,butthat
he had been informed that it would be sold for much less. He also
pointed out that the building thereon which houses the Jardeleza
ClinicisamonumenttoErnestoJardelezaSr.sindustry,laborand
service to his fellowmen. Hence, the said property has a lot of
sentimentalvaluetohisfamily.Besides,arguedTeodoroJardeleza,
then conjugal partnership had other liquid assets to pay off all
financialobligations.Hementionedthatapartfromsufficientcash,
Jardeleza,Sr.ownedstocksofIloiloDoctorsHospitalwhichcanbe
offset against the cost of medical and hospital bills. Furthermore,
ErnestoJardeleza,Sr.enjoyscertainprivilegesatthesaidhospital
which allows him to pay on installment basis. Moreover, two of
ErnestoJardeleza,Sr.sattendingphysiciansarehisownsonswho
donotchargeanythingfortheirprofessionalservices.
OnJuly4,1991,TeodoroJardelezafiledinSpec.Proc.No.4691
a supplement to his motion for reconsideration (Annex G). He
reiteratedhiscontentionthatsummaryproceedingswasirregularly
applied.Healsonotedthattheprovisionsonsummaryproceedings
foundinChapter2of
251

VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000

251

Uy vs. Court of Appeals

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,
thesaidprovisionscannotbemadetoapply.
While the motion for reconsideration was pending, Gilda
Jardeleza disposed by absolute sale Lot No. 4291 and all its
improvementstoherdaughter,Ma.GlendaJardelezaUy,forEight
MillionPesos(P8,000,000.00),asevidencedbyaDeedAbsoluteSale
dated July 8, 1991 executed between them (p. 111, Rollo). Under
date of July 23, 1991, Gilda Jardeleza filed an urgent exparte
motionforapprovalofthedeedofabsolutesale.
On August 12, 1991 Teodoro Jardeleza filed his Opposition to
themotionforapprovalofthedeedofsaleonthegroundsthat:(1)
the motion was prematurely filed and should be held in abeyance
until the final resolution of the petition; (2) the motion does not
allege nor prove the justifications for the sale; and (3) the motion
doesnotallegethathadErnestoJardeleza,Sr.beencompetent,he
wouldhavegivenhisconsenttothesale.

Judge Amelita K. del RosarioBenedicto of Branch 32 of the

respondent Court, who had penned the decision in Spec. Proc. No.
4691 had in the meantime formally inhibited herself from further
acting in this case (Annex I). The case was then reraffled to
Branch28ofthesaidcourt.
On December 19, 1991, the said court issued an Order (Annex
M) denying herein petitioners motion for reconsideration and
approvingrespondentJardelezasmotionforapprovalofthedeedof
absolutesale.Thesaidcourtruledthat:
After a careful and thorough perusal of the decision, dated June 20,
1991,theMotionforReconsideration,aswellasitssupplementsfiledby
oppositor, Teodoro L. Jardeleza, through counsel, and the opposition
to the Motion for Reconsideration, including its supplements, filed by
petitioner, through counsel, this Court is of the opinion and so holds,
that her Honor, Amelita K. del RosarioBenedicto, Presiding Judge of
Branch32,ofthisCourt,hasproperlyobservedtheprocedureembodied
under Article 253, in relation to Article 124, of the Family Code, in
renderingherdecisiondatedJune20,1991.
Also, as correctly stated by petitioner, through counsel, that
oppositorTeodorL.Jardelezadoesnothavethepersonalitytooppose
theinstantpetitionconsideringthatthepropertyorproperties,
252

252

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals

subject of the petition, belongs to the conjugal partnership of the

spousesErnestoandGildaJardeleza,whoarebothstillalive.
In view thereof, the Motion for Reconsideration of oppositor
TeodoroL.Jardeleza,isherebydeniedforlackofmerit.
Considering the validity of the decision dated June 20, 1991, which
amongothers,authorizedGildaL.JardelezatosellLotNo.4291ofthe
Cadastral Survey of Iloilo, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
47337 issued in the names of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., and Gilda L.
Jardeleza and the building standing thereon, the Urgent ExParte
Motion for Approval of Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 23, 1991, filed
by petitioner, through counsel, is hereby granted and the deed of
absolute sale, executed and notarized on July 8, 1991, by and between
Gilda L. Jardeleza, as vendor, and Ma. Glenda Jardeleza, as vendee, is
herebyapproved,andtheRegisterofDeedsofIloiloCity,isdirectedto
registerthesaleandissuethecorrespondingtransfercertificateoftitle
tothevendee.

SOORDERED.

OnDecember9,1992,theCourtofAppealspromulgatedits
decision reversing the appealed decision and ordering the
trialcourttodismissthespecialproceedingstoapprovethe
5
deedofsale,whichwasalsodeclaredvoid.
On December
29, 1992, petitioners filed a motion for
6
reconsideration, however,onMarch29,1993,theCourtof
Appeals denied the motion, finding7 no cogent and
compellingreasontodisturbthedecision.
8
Hence,thisappeal.
TheissueraisediswhetherpetitionerGildaL.Jardeleza
asthewifeofErnestoJardeleza,Sr.whosufferedastroke,a
cerebrovascularaccident,renderinghimcomatose,without
motor and mental faculties, and could not manage their

conjugalpartnershipprop
________________
4Supra,Note1,atpp.194198.
5Ibid.
6Petition,AnnexS,Rollo,pp.203232.
7

Supra, Note 1, Marigomen, J., pononte, Rasul and Galvez, JJ.,

concurring,Rollo,pp.233234.
8PetitionfiledonApril14,1993,Rollo,pp.249.OnMarch20,1996,

wegaveduecoursetothepetition,Rollo,p.383.
253

VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000

253

Uy vs. Court of Appeals

erty may assume sole powers of administration of the
conjugalpropertyunderArticle124oftheFamilyCodeand
dispose of a parcel of land with its improvements, worth
more than twelve million pesos, with the approval of the
court in a summary proceedings, to her copetitioners, her
own daughter and soninlaw, for the amount of eight
millionpesos.
The Court of Appeals ruled that in the condition of Dr.
Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., the procedural rules on summary
proceedingsinrelationtoArticle124oftheFamilyCodeare
not applicable. Because Dr. Jardeleza, Sr. was unable to
takecareofhimselfandmanagetheconjugalpropertydue
to illness that had rendered him comatose, the proper
remedy was the appointment of a judicial guardian of the
personorestateorbothofsuchincompetent,underRule93,
Section 1, 1964 Revised Rules of Court. Indeed, petitioner
earlierhadfiledsuchapetitionforjudicialguardianship:
Article124oftheFamilyCodeprovidesasfollows:
ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal
partnershippropertyshallbelongtobothspousesjointly.Incaseof
disagreement, the husbands decision shall prevail, subject to
recoursetothecourtbythewifeforaproperremedywhichmustbe
availed of within five years from the date of the contract
implementingsuchdecision.
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
offeronthepartoftheconsentingspouseandthethirdperson,and
maybeperfectedasabindingcontractupontheacceptancebythe
other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is
withdrawnbyeitherorbothofferors.(165a).

In regular manner, the rules on summary judicial

proceedingsundertheFamilyCodegoverntheproceedings
under Article 124 of the Family Code. The situation
contemplated is one where the spouse is absent, or

separatedinfactorhasabandonedtheotherorconsentis
withheldorcannotbeobtained.Suchrulesdonotapplyto
cases where the nonconsenting spouse is incapacitated or
in
254

254

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals

competenttogiveconsent.Inthiscase,thetrialcourtfound
that the subject spouse is an incompetent who was in
comatose or semicomatose condition, a victim of stroke,
cerebrovascular accident, without motor and9 mental
faculties,andwithadiagnosisofbrainsteminfarct. Insuch
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
proceedingsundertheFamilyCodemayapplytothewifes
administration of the conjugal property, the law provides
thatthewifewhoassumessolepowersofadministrationhas
thesamepowersanddutiesasaguardianundertheRules
10
ofCourt.
Consequently,aspousewhodesirestosellrealproperty
assuchadministratoroftheconjugalpropertymustobserve
the procedure for the sale of the wards estate required of
judicial guardians under Rule 95,1964 Revised Rules of
Court, not the summary judicial proceedings under the
FamilyCode.
Inthecaseatbar,thetrialcourtdidnotcomplywiththe
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
causewhythepetitionshouldnotbegranted.
Hence, we agree with the Court of Appeals that absent
an opportunity to be heard, the decision rendered by the
trial court is void for lack of due process. The doctrine
consistentlyadheredtobythisCourtisthatadenialofdue
processsufficestocastontheofficialacttakenbywhatever
11
branch of the government the impress of nullity. A
decisionrenderedwithoutdueprocessisvoidab
initioand
12
maybeattackeddirectlyorcollaterally. Adecisionisvoid
forlackofdueprocessif,asaresult,apartyisdeprivedof
theoppor
________________
9 Petition, Annexes J and K, medical certificates, Rollo, pp. 145

146.
10Article61,FamilyCode.
11DBPv.Bautista,135Phil.201,205206;26SCRA366,371[1968].
12Davidv.Aquilizan,94SCRA707,714[1979].

255

VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000

255

Uy vs. Court of Appeals

13

tunityofbeingheard. Avoiddecisionmaybeassailedor
impugned at any time either directly or collaterally, by
meansofaseparateaction,orbyresistingsuchdecisionin
14
anyactionorproceedingwhereitisinvoked.
WHEREFORE,theCourtAFFIRMSthedecisionofthe
CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.26936,in toto.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
YnaresSantiago, JJ.,concur.
Judgment affirmed in toto.
Notes.Ajudicialguardianisclothedwithauthorityto
withdraw the wards earlier express permission given to
thirdpersonstooccupyacertainproperty.(Caiza vs. Court
of Appeals,268SCRA640[1997])
UnderthejurisprudenceprevailingbeforethenewCivil
Code,therulewasthatwhileparentsmaybetheguardians
oftheirminorchildren,suchguardianshipdidnotextendto
the property of their minor childrenparents then had no
power to dispose of the property of their minor children
without court authorization. (VillanuevaMijares vs. Court
of Appeals,330SCRA349[2000])
o0o
________________
13 The Summary Dismissal Board, etc. v. Torcita, G.R. No. 130442,

April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 153, citing Paluay v. Court of Appeals, 293
SCRA358[1998].
14AngLamv.Rosillosa,86Phil.447,452[1950].

256

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.