“No man is good enough to govern any woman without her consent.”- Susan B. Anthony
Dear IBP,
Isa po akong OFW, may-asawa at dalawang anak. Noong 2020 pandemic, nasa abroad po ako, ibinenta ng husband ko ang bahay at lupa namin ng hindi ko po alam. Yung farm namin, pina-rentahan din po nya na hindi ko alam. Naka titulo po sa aming mag-asawa ang lupa. Ikinasal po kami noong 2000. Nasa abroad ang husband ko ngayon kasi nagpa-alam naman siya na mag OFW siya. Mabawi ko po ba ang bahay at lupa namin, pati po ang farm?
Annie.
Dear Annie,
The properties you mentioned are covered under Article 124 of the Family Code which provides, “Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent the disposition or encumbrance shall be void.
However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.”
Also, in the case of Dennis Tuazon et.a.l, vs Myra Fuentes, the Supreme Court stated that” the law requires that the disposition of common property by the husband as an administrator in appropriate cases requires the written consent of the wife, otherwise, the disposition is void.” In the same case, the Supreme Court stated that “lower courts aptly declared the lease contracts executed without the written consent of Fuentes as void.
The subject of the contracts of lease involved common property; hence, for the contracts to be effective, the consent of both husband and wife must concur. It is immaterial whether Fuentes had knowledge of the questioned transactions as the latter admittedly did not give her written consent to the contracts. Significantly, Tuazon himself admitted that Fuentes did not participate nor sign the contracts of lease.”
In Abakada Guro Party List v. Hon. Exec. Ermita, 506 Phil. 1, 113, 2005, citing Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1990 ed., p. 45, the Supreme Cout stressed that “the law requires written consent of the other spouse, otherwise, the disposition of common property is void. The requirement under the law is clear, categorical, unambiguous, and makes no room for interpretation. Under the rules on statutory construction, where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says, and courts have no choice but to see to it that the mandate is obeyed.”
As you can see, there is a law that protects the conjugal property from being disposed by the husband or wife without his or her written consent. The law and jurispudence are both clear, that in the disposition or encumbrance of common properties, written consent is required. This should also serve as a reminder to everyone that a conjugal property is a special nature of ownership and property regime governed by marriage.
As for husbands, even if they are heads of the family, they still need to get the consent of their wives in disposing their conjugal properties. That is what a good husband should do. Remember, “No man is good enough to govern any woman without her consent”
