Short answer. No. Article 124 of the Family Code is explicit: sole powers of administration do not include the power to sell or mortgage conjugal property. Without court authority or your spouse's written consent, any such sale or encumbrance is void. Sole administration covers management, not disposition.
What the law says
These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without 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.
Family Code, Article 124 — Joint Administration; Disposition Requires Consent. Read the full provision →
Sole administration does not include the power to sell
Article 124 permits the capable spouse to step in and manage conjugal property when the other is incapacitated. That is useful authority — it keeps the property productive and avoids deadlock. But the Family Code draws a sharp boundary: these powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. Selling, donating, mortgaging, or otherwise alienating conjugal property requires something more than sole administration authority — either a court order or the written consent of the incapacitated spouse.
What happens if you sell without the required authority
The consequence is stated plainly: in the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. A sale of conjugal land without court authority or the other spouse's written consent is void from the start — not merely challengeable, but void. A buyer who purchases conjugal property under these circumstances, without the required consent or court order, acquires nothing. The title does not validly transfer. This is why diligent buyers check whether conjugal property is being sold with proper spousal authorization.
The path to a valid sale
If you genuinely need to sell conjugal property while your spouse is incapacitated, the Family Code provides two routes. The first is obtaining court authority — a petition to the court explaining why the sale is necessary, and seeking judicial authorization. The court can grant this, for example, to pay for the incapacitated spouse's medical care or to preserve the family's financial situation. The second route is written consent from the incapacitated spouse — possible if the incapacity is physical rather than mental, and the spouse retains the capacity to understand and consent to the transaction.
The continuing offer doctrine
Article 124 includes one flexibility provision. A disposition made without authority is treated as a continuing offer by the selling spouse and the buyer. The transaction can still be completed — as a binding contract — if the other spouse later accepts, or if the court later authorizes it, before the offer is withdrawn. This gives buyers some protection when they deal in good faith and the absent spouse's consent is eventually obtained. But it is not a substitute for getting authority before the sale; it is a narrow remedy for situations where the sequence was not followed.
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 →