FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 109557. November 29, 2000.]

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

JARDELEZA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
TEODORO L. JARDELEZA, respondents.

Jiz Jiz Andrada Gellada & Associates for petitioners.

Roco Biñag Kapunan & Migallos for private respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza instituted before the Regional Trial Court of

Iloilo a petition to declare her husband Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. incapacitated, in
view his comatose condition, and to authorize her to assume sole powers of
administration of their conjugal properties and to dispose the same, with the
approval of the court, to their daughter and son-in-law, her co-petitioners
herein, to defray the mounting expenses for treatment and hospitalization of
her incapacitated husband. After hearing, the RTC granted the petition and
made a pronouncement that the petition filed by petitioner was pursuant to
Article 124 of the Family Code, and that the proceedings thereon are governed
by the rules on summary proceedings sanctioned under Article 253 of the same
Code. Private respondent, son of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. moved for
reconsideration contending, among others, that the rules governing special
proceedings in the Revised Rules of Court should be followed. The trial court
denied the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the
trial court and declared void the special proceedings instituted therein by
petitioners ruling that the proper remedy was the appointment of a judicial
guardian of the person or estate or both of such incompetent, under Rule 93,
Section 1, 1964 Revised Rules of Court.
In regular manner, the rules on summary judicial proceedings under the
Family Code govern the proceedings under Article 124 of the Family Code. 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. In this case, the trial court found that the subject
spouse "is an incompetent" who was in comatose or semi-comatose 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 proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964
Revised Rules of Court.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 for the sale of the ward's
estate required of judicial guardians under Rule 95 of the 1964 Revised Rules of
Court, not the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code.

SYLLABUS

1. FAMILY CODE; ADMINISTRATION OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP

PROPERTY; RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE FAM ILY CODE NOT
APPLICABLE TO CASES WHERE THE NON-CONSENTING SPOUSE IS
INCAPACITATED OR INCOMPETENT TO GIVE CONSENT; PROPER REMEDY IS
JUDICIAL GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS. — In regular manner, the rules on
summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code govern the proceedings
under Article 124 of the Family Code. 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. In this case, the trial court found that the subject spouse "is an
incompetent" who was in comatose or semi-comatose 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 proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; GUARDIANSHIP;
PROCEDURE FOR THE SALE OF WARD'S ESTATE REQUIRED OF JUDICIAL
GUARDIANS MUST BE OBSERVED BY A SPOUSE WHO DESIRES TO DISPOSE OF
THEIR CONJUGAL PROPERTY AS SOLE ADMINISTRATOR THEREOF. — 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. 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
of judicial guardians under Rule 95, 1964 Revised Rules of Court, not the
summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code. SHCaDA

3. ID.; JUDGMENT RENDERED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IS VOID AB

INITIO AND MAY BE ATTACKED DIRECTLY OR COLLATERALLY. — In the case at
bar, the trial court did not comply with the 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 cause why the 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 doctrine
consistently adhered to by this Court is that a denial of due process suffices to
cast on the official act taken by whatever branch of the government the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 impress of nullity. A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and
may be attacked directly or collaterally. "A decision is void for lack of due
process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the opportunity of being heard." "A
void decision may be assailed or impugned at any time either directly or
collaterally, by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any
action or proceeding where it is invoked."

DECISION

PARDO, J : p

The case is an appeal via certiorari from the decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals and its resolution denying reconsideration 2 reversing that of the
Regional Trial Court, Iloilo, Branch 32 3 and declaring void the special
proceedings instituted therein by petitioners to authorize petitioner Gilda L.
Jardeleza, in view of the comatose condition of her husband, Ernesto Jardeleza,
Sr., with the 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."
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 brother-in-law, 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 and bereft of any motor or
mental faculties. Said Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. is the father of herein
respondent Teodoro Jardeleza and husband of herein private
respondent Gilda Jardeleza.

"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 present physical and mental
incapacity of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. prevent him from competently
administering his properties, and in order to prevent the loss and
dissipation of the Jardelezas' real and personal assets, there was a
need for a court-appointed guardian to administer said properties. It
was prayed therein that Letters of Guardianship be issued in favor of
herein private respondent Gilda 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "A few days later, or on June 13, 1991, respondent Gilda L.
Jardeleza herself filed a petition docketed as Special Proceeding NO.
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 her husband, who was
then confined for intensive medical care and treatment at the Iloilo
Doctor's Hospital. She signified to the court her desire to assume sole
powers of administration of their conjugal properties. She also alleged
that her husband's medical treatment and hospitalization expenses
were piling up, accumulating to several hundred thousands of pesos
already. For this, she urgently needed to sell one piece of real property,
specifically Lot No. 4291 and its improvements. Thus, she prayed for
authorization from the court to sell said property. caIETS

"The following day, June 14, 1991, Branch 32 of the R.T.C. of

Iloilo City issued an Order (Annex "C") finding the petition in Spec. Proc.
No. 4691 to be sufficient in form and substance, and setting the
hearing thereof for June 20, 1991. The scheduled hearing of the
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.'s
attending physicians.
"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 participate in the
administration of the conjugal properties, and that 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 the petition filed by Gilda L.
Jardeleza was "pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code, and that the
proceedings thereon are governed by the rules on summary
proceedings sanctioned under Article 253 of the same Code . . . .

"The said court then disposed as follows:

"WHEREFORE, there being factual and legal bases to the
petition dated June 13, 1991, the Court hereby renders judgment
as follows:
"1) declaring Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., petitioner's
husband, to be incapacitated and unable to participate in the
administration of conjugal properties;

"2) authorizing petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza to assume

sole powers of administration of their conjugal properties; and
"3) authorizing aforesaid petitioner to sell Lot No. 4291
of the Cadastral Survey of Iloilo, situated in Iloilo City and
covered by TCT No. 47337 issued in the names of Ernesto
Jardeleza, Sr. and Gilda L. Jardeleza and the buildings standing
thereof.

"SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "On June 24, 1991, herein petitioner Teodoro Jardeleza filed his
Opposition to the proceedings before Branch 32 in Spec. Proc. Case No.
4691, said petitioner being unaware and not knowing that a decision
has already been rendered on the case by public respondent.
"On July 3, 1991, herein petitioner Teodoro Jardeleza filed a
motion 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 authority to sell the
conjugal properties was essentially a petition for guardianship of the
person and properties of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. As such, it cannot be
prosecuted in accordance with the provisions on summary proceedings
set out in Article 253 of the Family Code. It should follow the rules
governing special proceedings in the Revised Rules of Court which
require procedural due process, particularly the need for notice and a
hearing on the merits. On the other hand, even if Gilda Jardeleza's
petition can be prosecuted by 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. He then restated his position that Spec. Proc. No. 4691
should be consolidated with Spec. Proc. No. 4689 which was filed
earlier and pending before Branch 25.
"Teodoro Jardeleza also questioned the propriety of the sale of
Lot No. 4291 and the improvements thereon supposedly to pay the
accumulated financial obligations arising from Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.'s
hospitalization. He alleged that the market value of the property would
be around Twelve to Fifteen Million Pesos, but that he had been
informed that it would be sold for much less. He also pointed out that
the building thereon which houses the Jardeleza Clinic is a monument
to Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.'s industry, labor and service to his fellowmen.
Hence, the said property has a lot of sentimental value to his family.
Besides, argued Teodoro Jardeleza, then conjugal partnership had
other liquid assets to pay off all financial obligations. He mentioned
that apart from sufficient cash, Jardeleza, Sr. owned stocks of Iloilo
Doctors' Hospital which can be off-set against the cost of medical and
hospital bills. Furthermore, Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. enjoys certain
privileges at the said hospital which allows him to pay on installment
basis. Moreover, two of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.'s attending physicians
are his own sons who do not charge anything for their professional
services.
"On July 4, 1991, Teodoro Jardeleza filed in Spec. Proc. No. 4691
a supplement to his motion for reconsideration (Annex "G"). He
reiterated his contention that summary proceedings was irregularly
applied. He also noted that the provisions on summary proceedings
found in Chapter 2 of 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 that were one spouse is "comatose without motor and mental
faculties," the said provisions cannot be made to apply.
"While the motion for reconsideration was pending, Gilda
Jardeleza disposed by absolute sale Lot No. 4291 and all its
improvements to her daughter, Ma. Glenda Jardeleza Uy, for Eight
Million Pesos (P8,000,000.00), as evidenced by a Deed Absolute Sale
dated July 8, 1991 executed between them (p. 111, Rollo ). Under date
of July 23, 1991, Gilda Jardeleza filed an urgent ex-parte motion for
approval of the deed of absolute sale.
"On August 12, 1991 Teodoro Jardeleza filed his Opposition to
the motion for approval of the deed of sale on the grounds that: (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 does not allege that
had Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. been competent, he would have given his
consent to the sale.

"Judge Amelita K. del Rosario-Benedicto 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 Branch
28 of the said court.

"On December 19, 1991, the said court issued an Order (Annex
"M") denying herein petitioner's motion for reconsideration and
approving respondent Jardeleza's motion for approval of the deed of
absolute sale. The said court ruled that:
"After a careful and thorough perusal of the decision, dated
June 20, 1991, the Motion for Reconsideration, as well as its
supplements filed by "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 Rosario-Benedicto, Presiding Judge of Branch 32, of this
Court, has properly observed the procedure embodied under
Article 253, in relation to Article 124, of the Family Code, in
rendering her decision dated June 20, 1991.
"Also, as correctly stated by petitioner, through counsel,
that "oppositor" Teodoro L. Jardeleza does not have the
personality to oppose the instant petition considering that the
property or properties, subject of the petition, belongs to the
conjugal partnership of the spouses Ernesto and Gilda Jardeleza,
who are both still alive.

"In view thereof, the Motion for Reconsideration of

"oppositor" Teodoro L. Jardeleza, is hereby denied for lack of
merit.
"Considering the validity of the decision dated June 20,
1991, which among others, authorized Gilda L. Jardeleza to sell
Lot No. 4291 of the Cadastral Survey of Iloilo, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47337 issued in the names of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., and Gilda L. Jardeleza and the building
standing thereon, the Urgent Ex-Parte 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 hereby approved, and the Register of Deeds of Iloilo
City, is directed to register the sale and issue the corresponding
transfer certificate of title to the vendee.
"SO ORDERED." 4

On December 9, 1992, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision

reversing the appealed decision and ordering the trial court to dismiss the
special proceedings to approve the deed of sale, which was also declared void.
5

On December 29, 1992, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,6

however, on March 29, 1993, the Court of Appeals denied the motion, finding
no cogent and compelling reason to disturb the decision. 7
Hence, this appeal. 8
The issue raised is whether petitioner Gilda L. Jardeleza as the wife of
Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. who suffered a stroke, a cerebrovascular accident,
rendering him comatose, without motor and mental faculties, and could not
manage their conjugal partnership property may assume sole powers of
administration of the conjugal property under Article 124 of the Family Code
and 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
co-petitioners, her own daughter and son-in-law, for the amount of eight million
pesos. CcSEIH

The Court of Appeals ruled that in the condition of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza,
Sr., the procedural rules on summary proceedings in relation to Article 124 of
the Family Code are not applicable. Because Dr. Jardeleza, Sr. was unable to
take care of himself and manage the conjugal property due to illness that had
rendered him comatose, the proper remedy was the appointment of a judicial
guardian of the person or estate or both of such incompetent, under Rule 93,
Section 1, 1964 Revised Rules of Court. Indeed, petitioner earlier had filed such
a petition for judicial guardianship.

Article 124 of the Family Code provides as follows:

"ART. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal
partnership property 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 a proper remedy which must be availed of
within five years from the date of the contract implementing such
decision.
"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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 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)."

In regular manner, the rules on summary judicial proceedings under the

Family Code govern the proceedings under Article 124 of the Family Code. 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. In this case, the trial court found that the subject
spouse "is an incompetent" who was in comatose or semi-comatose condition,
a victim of stroke, cerebrovascular accident, without motor and mental
faculties, and with a diagnosis of brain stem infarct. 9 In such 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 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. 10
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 of judicial guardians under Rule 95, 1964 Revised
Rules of Court, not the summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code.
In the case at bar, the trial court did not comply with the 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 cause why the 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 doctrine consistently adhered to by this 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. 11 A decision rendered without due process
is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. 12 "A decision is
void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the opportunity
of being heard." 13 "A void decision may be assailed or impugned at any time
either directly or collaterally, by means of a separate action, or by resisting
such decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked." 14
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 26936, in toto.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. In CA-G.R. SP No. 26936, promulgated on December 09, 1992, Petition,
Annex "R", Rollo , pp. 193-202.
2. Petition, Annex "T", Rollo , pp. 233-234.
3. Ibid., Annex "C", RTC Decision, Rollo , pp. 55-56.
4. Supra, Note 1, at pp. 194-198.
5. Ibid.
6. Petition, Annex "S", Rollo , pp. 203-232.
7. Supra, Note 1, Marigomen, J., ponente, Rasul and Galvez, JJ., concurring,
Rollo , pp. 233-234.
8. Petition filed on April 14, 1993, Rollo , pp. 2-49. On March 20, 1996, we gave
due course to the petition, Rollo , p. 383.
9. Petition, Annexes "J" and " K", medical certificates, Rollo , pp. 145-146.
10. Article 61, Family Code.
11. DBP vs. Bautista, 135 Phil. 201, 205-206 [1968].
12. David v. Aquilizan, 94 SCRA 707, 714 [1979].
13. The Summary Dismissal Board etc. v. Torcita, G.R. No. 130442, April 6,
2000, citing Palu-ay v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 358 [1998].
14. Ang Lam v. Rosillosa, 86 Phil. 447, 452 [1950].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com