Case Digest (G.R. No. 109557)
Facts:
Jose Uy and His Spouse Glenda J. Uy and Gilda L. Jardeleza, Petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Teodoro L. Jardeleza, Respondents, G.R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000, the Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.This case arose from the stroke of Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr. on March 25, 1991, which left him comatose and incapable of managing his person and property. His son, Teodoro L. Jardeleza (respondent), filed on June 6, 1991 a petition for guardianship (Special Proceeding No. 4689) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Iloilo City, seeking appointment of a guardian for Dr. Ernesto’s person and estate. A few days later, on June 13, 1991, Gilda L. Jardeleza (private respondent and co-petitioner here) filed a separate petition (Special Proceeding No. 4691) before RTC Branch 32 praying that she be declared to have sole powers of administration of the conjugal properties and be authorized to sell Lot No. 4291 to defray her husband’s mounting medical expenses.
Branch 32 found Dr. Ernesto incapacitated after a June 20, 1991 hearing and, invoking Article 124 and summary proceedings under Article 253 of the Family Code, issued a decision (June 20, 1991) declaring incapacity, authorizing Gilda to assume sole administration, and authorizing the sale of Lot No. 4291. While a motion for reconsideration by Teodoro was pending, Gilda executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on July 8, 1991 conveying the lot and improvements to her daughter, Ma. Glenda Jardeleza Uy, for P8,000,000. Branch 32 (after reassignment following the presiding judge’s inhibition) denied reconsideration and, by Order dated December 19, 1991 (reraffled to Branch 28), approved the deed and directed registration of the transfer.
The Court of Appeals, however, on December 9, 1992 in CA-G.R. SP No. 26936 reversed the RTC, declared the special proceedings and the sale void, and ordered dismissal; its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was entered March 29, 1993. Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), filed April 14, 1993; the Court gave due course on March 20, 1996. The Supreme Court consider...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the invocation of summary proceedings under Article 253 of the Family Code proper when the nonconsenting spouse (Dr. Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.) was comatose and thus incapacitated?
- Was due process observed when the RTC adjudicated Special Proceeding No. 4691 and approved the sale without notice and an opportunity to be heard for the incapacitated spouse?
- May a spouse who assumes sole administration of conjugal property under Article 124 dispose of (sell) conjugal real property by summary proceedings without complying with Rule 93/95 guardianship proced...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)