JOSE AND GLENDA UY (SPOUSES), GILDA JARDELEZA v.

CA, TEODORO JARDELEZA

G.R. No. 109557, Nov. 29, 2000

FACTS
- Respondent Teodoro is the son of petitioner Gilda and the brother of Glenda Jardeleza (married to Jose
Uy).
- Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza Sr. (father of Teodoro and Glenda, husband of Gilda) suffered a stroke in 1991,
leaving him without motor or mental faculties.
- Teodoro learned that a piece of real property belonging to his parents was about to be sold. Henc,e he
filed a petition before the Iloilo City RTC docketed as Special Proceeding No. 4689, in the matter of
guardianshio of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. Teodoro averred that the physical and mental capacity of his
father prevented him from administering his properties and there was a need for a court-appointed
guardian to administer the same to prevent loss and dissipation of the assets.It was prayed that Letters
of Guardianship be issued in favor of Gilda (mother) and that in the meantime, no property of Dr.
Ernesto be negotiated or alienated to third persons.
- A few days later, Gilda filed a petition for the declaration on incapacity of Ernesto, assumption of sole
powers of administration of conjugal properties, and authorization to sell the same. Dr. Ernesto was
confined for intensive medical care at the Iloilo Doctors Hospital and Gilda alleged she needed to sell
Lot No. 4291 so she could pay his medical bills amounting to several hundred thousand pesos.
- The RTC set the hearing for Gildas petition, which was attended by Gilda, Glenda, Ernesto Jr., and Dr.
Rolando Padella (one of Dr. Ernestos physicians).
- The RTC rendered its decision, finding that Dr Ernesto was truly incapacitated to administer his
property and that the sale of Lot No. 4291 was necessary to defray the mounting expenses for his
hospitalization and treatment. The court also made a pronouncement that the petition was pursuant to
Art. 124 of the Family Code and that the proceedings are governed by the rules on summary
proceedings under Art. 243 of the same.
- Teodoro filed his Opposition, claiming he was unaware a decision had been rendered in the case.
- He filed an MR for the judgment in the second case and a motion for consolidation of the two cases.He
argued:
a. That the petition for declaration of incapacity, assumption of sole powers of
administration, and authority to sell properties was essentially a petition for guardianship
of the person and properties of Dr. Ernesto. As such, it cannot be prosecuted in
accordance with the provisions on summary proceedings under Art. 124 of the Family
Code but should follow the rules governing special proceedings, which require notice
and hearing.
b. The provision on summary proceedings is found in Chapter 2 of the Family Code comes under the
heading on Separation in Fact Between Husband and Wife which separates a situation where both
spouses are of disposing mind.
c. Even assuming it can be prosecuted by summary proceeding, there was still a failure to meet with
the basic requirements thereof, making the decision defective.
d. Dr. Ernesto had acquired vested rights as a conjugal partner and these rights cannot be impaired
without his consent, neither can he be deprived o his share in the conjugal properties through mere
summary proceedings.
e. Spec. Proc. 4689 was filed earlier, hence consolidation would be proper
f. The sale of the property was improper since it was to be sold for much less than its market value
(12- 15 Million) and that the building on the property housed the Jardeleza clinic, a monument to
his fathers industry and service and hence had sentimental value to his property.
g. The sale is also improper because the Dr. Ernesto owns stocks in the hospital which can offset the
expenses, enjoys certain privileges at the hospital which allow him to pay on a staggered basis
 and that he wasnt charged for professional services since two of his attending physicians are his
sons.
- While the MR was pending, Gilda disposed of the property to her daughter, Glenda, for P8M and filed
an urgent ex-parte motion for approval of the deed of absolute sale.
- The court approved the sale and denied Teodoros MR. The court ruled that procedure under Art. 253,
in relation to Art. 124 was properly followed, and that Teodoro had no legal standing to opposed since
the property belonged to the conjugal partnership of the spouses, both of whom were still alive.
- Upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision and ordered the trial court to dismiss the special
proceedings to approve the deed of sale, which was also declared void.

ISSUES
- W/N petitioner Gilda (wife) may assume sole powers of administration of the conjugal property under
Art. 124 of the Family Code.
- W/N petitioner Gilda could dispose of the parcel of land with the approval of the court in a summary
proceeding.

RULING
- NO. The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED in toto.
- The CA ruled that summary proceedings in relation to Art. 124 are inapplicable. Because Dr. Ernesto
was unable to take care of himself and manage the property, the proper remedy was the appointment of
a judicial guardian under Rule 93 of the ROC, which Teodoro had filed earlier.
- Summary proceedings do apply to Art. 124 of the Family Code. However, Art. 124 of the
Family Code applies to a situation where the other spouse is absent, the spouses are
separated in fact or one has abandoned the other, or when consent is withheld or cannot be
obtained. It does NOT apply where the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give
consent (such as in this case when the husband is comatose). The proper remedy is judicial
guardianship proceedings under Rule 93.
- Even assuming that the rules of summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code may apply to the
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 ROC.
- Consequently, a spouse who desires to sell real property as such administrator of the conjugal property
should observe the procedure for the sale of the wards estate required of judicial guardians under Rule
95, not the summary judicial proceedings under the FC.