Short answer. The husband's, as the article is written — but only provisionally. The wife may go to court for the proper remedy, and she must do so within five years from the date of the contract implementing the decision she objects to. After that the decision stands.
What the law says
The administration and enjoyment of the community 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 proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
Family Code, Article 96 — Administration of the Community Property. Read the full provision →
Joint administration is the rule; the tie-break is the exception
The first sentence is the one that governs most of married life: administration and enjoyment belong to both spouses jointly. Neither spouse is the manager and the other a bystander. The husband's casting vote operates only where there is an actual disagreement over an act of administration, and it settles that act so that the community's affairs are not paralysed. It is a tie-break, not a grant of authority over the property, and it does not entitle a husband to act without consulting his wife or to present decisions to her as already made.
It does not reach sales or mortgages
This is the misunderstanding worth correcting. The casting vote is located in the part of the article about administration, and a later sentence of the same article puts disposition and encumbrance outside administrative powers altogether, requiring the written consent of the other spouse or authority of the court. So a husband cannot invoke his prevailing decision to sell the family home, mortgage a lot or pledge community property over his wife's objection. Where he does, the transaction is void, and the question becomes one about the consequences of the disposition rather than about whose management decision won.
Five years, counted from the contract
The wife's recourse to the court is qualified by a period that runs quickly. It must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision, which is a date on a document, not the date she learned of it or the date the consequences became painful. If the decision was implemented by a lease, the lease bears the date; if by a construction agreement or a loan, that instrument does. A wife who spent four years arguing at home and then went to a lawyer may find very little of the period left, and there is no provision extending it for time spent negotiating.
Find the instrument, and check the date
Whatever else you gather, find the contract that implemented the decision, because both the availability of the remedy and the deadline for it turn on that single document. Read it for its date, for who signed, and for whether it merely administers the property or actually disposes of or encumbers it — the answer decides which part of the article you are in and therefore which remedy you are asking for. Take it, the title and the marriage records to a lawyer early, since the one thing that cannot be repaired afterwards is a period already run.
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.
- Maryline Esteban vs. Radlin Campano, and all persons claiming rights under him, G.R. No. 235364, April 26, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Arturo Sarte Flores vs. Sps. Enrico L. Lindo, Jr. and Edna C. Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philip Mattews vs. Benjamin A. Taylor and Joselyn C. Taylor, G.R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Belinda Alexander vs. Spouses Jorge and Hilaria Escalona and Reygan Escalona, G.R. No. 256141, July 19, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →