Case Digest: JOSE UY and his Spouse GLENDA J. UY and GILDA L. JARDELEZA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORO L. JARDELEZA

G.R. No. 109557   29 November 2000

PARDO, J.

FACTS:

On 25 March 1991, Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. suffered from a stroke which left him comatose and bereft of any motor or mental faculties.  He is the father of herein respondent Teodoro Jardeleza and the husband of herein petitioner Gilda Jardeleza.  Gilda signified to the court her desire to assume sole powers of administration of their conjugal properties and also alleged that her husband’s medical treatment and hospitalization expenses are piling up.  For this, she urgently needed to sell one piece of real property, specifically Lot No. 4291 and its improvements.  Said incapacity of Ernesto Sr. was affirmed by the RTC of Iloilo City, and Gilda was authorized to assume sole powers of administration of their conjugal properties pursuant to Article 124 of the Family Code.

Teodoro Jardeleza filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgement and questioned the property sale of Lot No. 4291, stating that the market value of the property would be around 12 to 15 million pesos, but had been sold to Gilda’s daughter, Glenda Uy for only 8 million pesos.  He also pointed out that the building thereon which houses the Jardeleza Clinic is a monument to his father’s industry, labor and service, and further argues that the conjugal partnership had other liquid assets to pay off all financial obligations in the form of cash and stocks which can off-set against the cost of medical and hospital bills.  Furthermore, Ernesto Sr. enjoys certain privileges at the said hospital which allows him to pay on instalment basis and that his two attending physicians are his own sons who do not charge anything for their professional services.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner Gilda Jardeleza as the wife of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. who suffered a stroke, rendering him comatose, could manage their conjugal property and may assume sole powers of administration of the conjugal property under Article 124 of the Family Code and dispose a parcel of land with its improvements to her own daughter and son-in-law.

HELD:

The proceedings under Article 124 of the Family Code contemplate a situation where the spouse is absent, or separated in fact or has abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained.  These rules do not apply in cases where the spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give consent.  A spouse who desires to sell real property as such administrator of the conjugal property must observe the procedure of the sale of the ward’s estate required of judicial guardians under the Revised Rules of Court. 

In the case at bar, the trial court did not comply with the procedure under the Revised Rules of Court.  Absent an opportunity to be heard, the decision rendered by the trial court is void for lack of due process. A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio.  A decision is void for lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard.