Short answer. Yes. Article 124 of the Family Code allows the other spouse to assume sole powers of administration when one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate. But those sole powers are limited — you can manage, but you cannot sell or mortgage conjugal property without court authority or your spouse's written consent.
What the law says
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.
Family Code, Article 124 — Joint Administration; Disposition Requires Consent. Read the full provision →
The default rule: joint administration
Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the conjugal partnership belongs to both spouses to manage together. Neither spouse can unilaterally control the conjugal assets as a matter of course. This joint administration is the baseline — it reflects that both spouses have an equal stake in property acquired during the marriage. An accident, illness, or other condition that leaves one spouse unable to participate disrupts that baseline, and the Family Code has a specific rule for that situation.
What the incapacity rule allows
When one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. This means you can manage the conjugal property — collect rent, maintain it, enter into ordinary agreements needed to preserve its value, make day-to-day decisions. Your spouse's incapacity does not freeze the administration; the Family Code allows you to step in and keep the property running.
The hard limit: you cannot sell or mortgage alone
Sole administration does not mean unlimited authority. Article 124 is explicit that these powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. So you cannot sell conjugal land, donate conjugal assets, or mortgage the conjugal home without either a court order authorizing the transaction or the written consent of your incapacitated spouse — if that spouse retains the capacity to give written consent. A sale or mortgage without one of these two bases is void.
The 'continuing offer' provision and why it matters
Article 124 contains a practical saving mechanism. If you do sell or encumber conjugal property without the required authority, the transaction is not simply dead. It is treated as a continuing offer — it can be ratified later, either by your spouse's acceptance or by court authorization, before the offer is withdrawn. This means a buyer who deals in good faith while understanding the limitation may still eventually complete the purchase if the necessary consent or court order comes through. The transaction is voidable, not necessarily permanently void.
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 →