GR 112014; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112014 ; December 5, 2000
TEODORO L. JARDELEZA, petitioner, vs. GILDA L. JARDELEZA, ERNESTO L. JARDELEZA, JR., MELECIO GIL L. JARDELEZA, and GLENDA L. JARDELEZA, respondents.
FACTS
Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., married to respondent Gilda L. Jardeleza, suffered a stroke in March 1991 and lapsed into a comatose condition. In June 1991, petitioner Teodoro L. Jardeleza, one of their children, filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City for the appointment of a judicial guardian over the person and estate of his incapacitated father. He initially prayed for his mother’s appointment but later moved for his own appointment, alleging his mother considered the property her own and did not wish to be guardian.
The respondents, including the wife and other children, opposed the petition. The RTC dismissed the petition for guardianship, concluding it was superfluous as it would merely duplicate the powers granted to the wife under Article 124, second paragraph, of the Family Code. The trial court denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether Article 124 of the Family Code renders the appointment of a judicial guardian over an incompetent married person superfluous, thereby precluding such a guardianship proceeding.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the RTC’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that Article 124 of the Family Code was not applicable to the situation of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. The legal logic is clear: Article 124 governs the administration and enjoyment of community property when one spouse is incapacitated but still capable of granting consent or authorization. It presupposes a degree of capacity in the incapacitated spouse to participate in the process.
Here, Dr. Jardeleza was in a comatose condition, utterly incapable of giving any consent or being notified of judicial petitions as required under Article 124. Therefore, the statutory provision could not operate. The proper procedural recourse for managing the affairs of a spouse who is completely incapable of any legal participation is the traditional judicial guardianship under Rule 93 of the Revised Rules of Court. The RTC erred in dismissing the petition as superfluous; guardianship remains the necessary legal mechanism to protect both the person and the estate of a spouse who lacks any capacity to act or consent.