Short answer. Yes. Article 2049 lets a married woman guarantee an obligation without her husband's consent. What her guaranty cannot do, absent his consent or a case the law allows, is bind the conjugal partnership — so she binds her own liability, not the couple's common property, by that act alone.
What the law says
A married woman may guarantee an obligation without the husband's consent
Civil Code, Article 2049 — Married Woman as Guarantor. Read the full provision →
What the law says
shall not thereby bind the conjugal partnership, except in cases provided by law
Civil Code, Article 2049 — Married Woman as Guarantor. Read the full provision →
She has full capacity to bind herself
The first half of the article settles the capacity question directly: A married woman may guarantee an obligation without the husband's consent. Marriage does not strip a woman of the power to contract, and guaranteeing another person's debt is a contract she may enter on her own. She does not need her husband's permission, signature or knowledge for the guaranty to be valid as against her. This reflects the broader principle that a married woman has full civil capacity; the old notion that a wife needed marital authorisation to bind herself does not survive here. Her consent alone makes the guaranty effective in respect of her.
The real limit: the conjugal partnership is untouched
The article's weight is in its second half. Being able to give the guaranty is not the same as being able to charge the family's common property with it. The provision says she shall not thereby bind the conjugal partnership — meaning the mere fact that she guaranteed a debt does not reach the assets she and her husband hold in common. Her guaranty engages what is hers to engage: her separate or exclusive property and her personal liability. The conjugal partnership, which ordinarily answers only for obligations that benefit the family, is shielded from a guaranty she took on for someone else's benefit without more.
The 'except in cases provided by law' qualifier
The shield is not unconditional. The article closes with except in cases provided by law, acknowledging that there are situations in which the common property can be reached — for instance where the obligation in fact redounded to the benefit of the family, or where the applicable property regime and its rules bring the partnership in. The point is that binding the conjugal partnership is the exception requiring a legal basis, not the default that follows automatically from the wife's signature. Whether such a case exists depends on the facts of the debt and the couple's property regime, which is precisely what has to be examined rather than assumed.
What a creditor and a spouse should take from this
For a creditor, the lesson is that a married woman's guaranty is good against her but is not, by itself, a charge over the couple's assets; if you are relying on conjugal property, you need a basis that actually reaches it, typically the husband's consent or a benefit to the family. For a spouse, it means one partner cannot casually expose the common property by guaranteeing outside debts. What each should look at is the couple's property regime and whether the guaranteed obligation benefited the family — those, not the guaranty alone, determine how far the liability extends.