Short answer. Under Family Code Article 124, a disposal of conjugal property without the other spouse's written consent or court authority is void. However, the law treats the transaction as a continuing offer, so the non-consenting spouse can still accept it and convert it into a binding contract — as long as neither party has withdrawn the offer first.
What the law says
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as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.
Family Code, Article 124 — Joint Administration; Disposition Requires Consent. Read the full provision →
The rule: joint administration, consent required for disposals
Under the conjugal partnership of gains, both spouses jointly administer and enjoy the conjugal property. When it comes to disposing of or encumbering conjugal property, neither spouse can act alone. The disposing spouse needs either the written consent of the other spouse or authority from a court. Without one of those two things, the transaction has no legal effect.
The transaction is void — but not permanently dead
Article 124 calls the unauthorised disposal void, which sounds final. In ordinary contract law, a void contract is a nullity from the start — it produces no rights and no obligations, and nothing can revive it. But the Family Code carves out an exception specific to this situation: the law treats the void disposal as a continuing offer made jointly by the disposing spouse and the buyer to the non-consenting spouse. That offer stays open until it is withdrawn.
How the non-consenting spouse can save the transaction
If the non-consenting spouse ultimately agrees — for whatever reason, whether practical or emotional — they can accept that continuing offer. The moment they accept, the transaction is perfected as a binding contract. The same result follows if the non-consenting spouse goes to court and the court authorises the transaction after the fact. Either route converts a void disposal into an enforceable agreement. The window closes, however, the moment either the disposing spouse or the buyer withdraws from the offer.
What this means in practice
If you are the non-consenting spouse who just found out that conjugal property was sold or mortgaged without your knowledge, you are not necessarily stuck. You have choices: you can refuse and treat the transaction as a nullity, or you can accept and let it stand. What you cannot do is wait indefinitely while the buyer is in limbo. The buyer, for their part, remains exposed until the non-consenting spouse acts or a court resolves the situation. Anyone dealing with conjugal property should confirm that both spouses have signed before closing or releasing funds.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Belinda Alexander vs. Spouses Jorge and Hilaria Escalona and Reygan Escalona, G.R. No. 256141, July 19, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Rex and Concepcion Aggabao vs. Dionisio Z. Parulan, Jr. and Ma. Elena Parulan, G.R. No. 165803, September 1, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs. Miguela C. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose and Glenda Uy, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →