Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R.No.109557.November29,2000.
247
VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000
247
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Jiz, Jiz, Andrada, Gellada & Associatesforpetitioners.
Roco, Buag, Kapunan & Migallos for private
respondentTeodoroJardeleza.
PARDO,J.:
1
Thecaseisanappealviacertiorarifromthedecision ofthe2
CourtofAppealsanditsresolutiondenyingreconsideration
reversing
that of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo, Branch
3
32 and declaring void the special proceedings instituted
therein by petitioners to authorize petitioner Gilda L.
Jardeleza,inviewofthe
________________
1
Petition,AnnexR,Rollo,pp.193202.
2Petition,AnnexT,Rollo,pp.233234.
3Ibid.,AnnexC,RTCDecision,Rollo,pp.5556.
248
248
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals
comatoseconditionofherhusband,ErnestoJardeleza,Sr.,
with the approval of the court, to dispose of their conjugal
propertyinfavorofcopetitioners,theirdaughterandsonin
law, for the ostensible purpose of financial need in the
personal, business and medical expenses of her
incapacitatedhusband.
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 brotherinlaw, 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
andbereftofanymotorormentalfaculties.SaidErnestoJardeleza,
Sr. is the father of herein respondent Teodoro Jardeleza and
husbandofhereinprivaterespondentGildaJardeleza.
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
presentphysicalandmentalincapacityofDr.ErnestoJardeleza,Sr.
prevent him from competently administering his properties, and in
ordertopreventthelossanddissipationoftheJardelezasrealand
personalassets,therewasaneedforacourtappointedguardianto
administer said properties. It was prayed therein that Letters of
GuardianshipbeissuedinfavorofhereinprivaterespondentGilda
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.
A few days later, or on June 13, 1991, respondent Gilda L.
JardelezaherselffiledapetitiondocketedasSpecialProceedingNo.
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
herhusband,whowasthenconfinedforintensivemedicalcareand
treatment at the Iloilo Doctors Hospital. She signified to the court
herdesiretoassumesolepowersofadministrationoftheirconjugal
properties.Shealsoallegedthatherhusbandsmedicaltreatment
249
VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000
249
IloiloCityissuedanOrder(AnnexC)findingthepetitioninSpec.
Proc. No. 4691 to be sufficient in form and substance, and setting
thehearingthereofforJune20,1991.Thescheduledhearingofthe
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.sattendingphysicians.
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
participateintheadministrationoftheconjugalproperties,andthat
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
thepetitionfiledbyGildaL.JardelezawaspursuanttoArticle124
oftheFamilyCode,andthattheproceedingsthereonaregoverned
bytherulesonsummaryproceedingssanctionedunderArticle253
ofthesameCodexxx.
Thesaidcourtthendisposedasfollows:
WHEREFORE,therebeingfactualandlegalbasestothepetitiondated
June13,1991,theCourtherebyrendersjudgmentasfollows:
1) declaring Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., petitioners husband, to be
incapacitated and unable to participate in the administration of
conjugalproperties;
2) authorizingpetitionerGildaL.Jardelezatoassumesolepowers
ofadministrationoftheirconjugalproperties;and
3) authorizing aforesaid petitioner to sell Lot No. 4291 of the
CadastralSurveyofIloilo,situatedinIloiloCityandcoveredby
TCT No. 47337 issued in the names of Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr.
andGildaL.Jardelezaandthebuildingsstandingthereof.
SOORDERED.
OnJune24,1991,hereinpetitionerTeodoroJardelezafiledhis
OppositiontotheproceedingsbeforeBranch32inSpec.Proc.Case
No. 4691, said petitioner being unaware and not knowing that a
decision has already been rendered on the case by public
respondent.
250
250
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals
OnJuly3,1991,hereinpetitionerTeodoroJardelezafiledamotion
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
authoritytoselltheconjugalpropertieswasessentiallyapetitionfor
guardianshipofthepersonandpropertiesofErnestoJardeleza,Sr.
As such, it cannot be prosecuted in accordance with the provisions
onsummaryproceedingssetoutinArticle253oftheFamilyCode.
It should follow the rules governing special proceedings in the
Revised Rules of Court which require procedural due process,
particularlytheneedfornoticeandahearingonthemerits.Onthe
otherhand,evenifGildaJardelezaspetitioncanbeprosecutedby
VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000
251
252
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals
SOORDERED.
OnDecember9,1992,theCourtofAppealspromulgatedits
decision reversing the appealed decision and ordering the
trialcourttodismissthespecialproceedingstoapprovethe
5
deedofsale,whichwasalsodeclaredvoid.
On December
29, 1992, petitioners filed a motion for
6
reconsideration, however,onMarch29,1993,theCourtof
Appeals denied the motion, finding7 no cogent and
compellingreasontodisturbthedecision.
8
Hence,thisappeal.
TheissueraisediswhetherpetitionerGildaL.Jardeleza
asthewifeofErnestoJardeleza,Sr.whosufferedastroke,a
cerebrovascularaccident,renderinghimcomatose,without
motor and mental faculties, and could not manage their
conjugalpartnershipprop
________________
4Supra,Note1,atpp.194198.
5Ibid.
6Petition,AnnexS,Rollo,pp.203232.
7
concurring,Rollo,pp.233234.
8PetitionfiledonApril14,1993,Rollo,pp.249.OnMarch20,1996,
wegaveduecoursetothepetition,Rollo,p.383.
253
VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000
253
separatedinfactorhasabandonedtheotherorconsentis
withheldorcannotbeobtained.Suchrulesdonotapplyto
cases where the nonconsenting spouse is incapacitated or
in
254
254
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uy vs. Court of Appeals
competenttogiveconsent.Inthiscase,thetrialcourtfound
that the subject spouse is an incompetent who was in
comatose or semicomatose condition, a victim of stroke,
cerebrovascular accident, without motor and9 mental
faculties,andwithadiagnosisofbrainsteminfarct. Insuch
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
proceedingsundertheFamilyCodemayapplytothewifes
administration of the conjugal property, the law provides
thatthewifewhoassumessolepowersofadministrationhas
thesamepowersanddutiesasaguardianundertheRules
10
ofCourt.
Consequently,aspousewhodesirestosellrealproperty
assuchadministratoroftheconjugalpropertymustobserve
the procedure for the sale of the wards estate required of
judicial guardians under Rule 95,1964 Revised Rules of
Court, not the summary judicial proceedings under the
FamilyCode.
Inthecaseatbar,thetrialcourtdidnotcomplywiththe
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
causewhythepetitionshouldnotbegranted.
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
consistentlyadheredtobythisCourtisthatadenialofdue
processsufficestocastontheofficialacttakenbywhatever
11
branch of the government the impress of nullity. A
decisionrenderedwithoutdueprocessisvoidab
initioand
12
maybeattackeddirectlyorcollaterally. Adecisionisvoid
forlackofdueprocessif,asaresult,apartyisdeprivedof
theoppor
________________
9 Petition, Annexes J and K, medical certificates, Rollo, pp. 145
146.
10Article61,FamilyCode.
11DBPv.Bautista,135Phil.201,205206;26SCRA366,371[1968].
12Davidv.Aquilizan,94SCRA707,714[1979].
255
VOL.346,NOVEMBER29,2000
255
tunityofbeingheard. Avoiddecisionmaybeassailedor
impugned at any time either directly or collaterally, by
meansofaseparateaction,orbyresistingsuchdecisionin
14
anyactionorproceedingwhereitisinvoked.
WHEREFORE,theCourtAFFIRMSthedecisionofthe
CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.26936,in toto.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and
YnaresSantiago, JJ.,concur.
Judgment affirmed in toto.
Notes.Ajudicialguardianisclothedwithauthorityto
withdraw the wards earlier express permission given to
thirdpersonstooccupyacertainproperty.(Caiza vs. Court
of Appeals,268SCRA640[1997])
UnderthejurisprudenceprevailingbeforethenewCivil
Code,therulewasthatwhileparentsmaybetheguardians
oftheirminorchildren,suchguardianshipdidnotextendto
the property of their minor childrenparents then had no
power to dispose of the property of their minor children
without court authorization. (VillanuevaMijares vs. Court
of Appeals,330SCRA349[2000])
o0o
________________
13 The Summary Dismissal Board, etc. v. Torcita, G.R. No. 130442,
April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 153, citing Paluay v. Court of Appeals, 293
SCRA358[1998].
14AngLamv.Rosillosa,86Phil.447,452[1950].
256