GR 109557; (November, 2000) (Digest)
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.
FACTS
Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. suffered a stroke, rendering him comatose and incapacitated. His son, respondent Teodoro Jardeleza, filed a petition for guardianship over his father’s person and properties to prevent asset dissipation. A few days later, the wife, petitioner Gilda Jardeleza, filed a separate petition in a different branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). She sought a declaration of her husband’s incapacity, authority to assume sole administration of their conjugal properties, and specific authorization to sell a parcel of land to cover medical and other expenses, invoking Article 124 of the Family Code.
The RTC, treating Gilda’s petition as a summary proceeding under the Family Code, granted it on the same day as the hearing, authorizing the sale. Teodoro, who was not notified of this separate proceeding, later filed an opposition and motion for reconsideration, arguing the petition was essentially one for guardianship requiring regular special proceedings and due process. The RTC denied his motions. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, declaring the proceedings void.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC’s grant of authority to the wife to administer conjugal property and sell the same, via summary proceedings under the Family Code, without observance of due process, is valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and declared the RTC proceedings void. The legal logic is anchored on due process and the correct classification of the proceeding. The Court ruled that the wife’s petition, while ostensibly under Article 124 of the Family Code, was in substance a petition for guardianship. The husband’s comatose state constituted legal incapacity, necessitating guardianship proceedings governed by the Rules of Court, not summary judicial proceedings.
Even assuming the Family Code’s summary proceedings applied, Article 124 requires the court to serve notice on the incapacitated spouse and require him to show cause. This was not done. Furthermore, a spouse administering conjugal property under such circumstances assumes the powers and duties of a guardian under the Rules of Court, which mandate specific procedures for selling a ward’s real property, including notice and hearing. The RTC’s failure to notify the incapacitated husband or his rightful guardian (the son who had already filed a guardianship petition) deprived them of the opportunity to be heard. A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and can be attacked at any time. The haste of the proceeding, culminating in a decision on the day of the hearing without proper notice, invalidated the authorization to sell the conjugal property.