Short answer. By law, administration and enjoyment of community property belongs to both spouses jointly, but if they disagree, the husband's decision prevails. The wife may still go to court to challenge that decision, but she must do so within five years from the date of the contract carrying it out.
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 starting point
Article 96 begins from the position that administering and enjoying the community property belongs to both spouses jointly. Day-to-day management is not meant to be the domain of one spouse alone; the default assumes both are involved and, ordinarily, in agreement about how the property is used. The rule described below only comes into play once that ordinary agreement breaks down.
When they disagree, the statute gives the husband's decision priority
Where the spouses cannot agree, Article 96 resolves the deadlock by stating that the husband's decision shall prevail. This is the literal rule as written in the article — the wife does not lose her stake in the property, but the statute does not give her decision the same tie-breaking weight when the couple cannot reach a joint decision.
The wife's recourse, and its time limit
The article does not leave the wife without a remedy. She may bring the disagreement to court for proper remedy, but that recourse is time-bound: it must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing the husband's decision. Letting that window close means the challenge under this article is no longer available, so acting promptly once a disputed decision has been carried out matters.
A separate rule applies when a spouse cannot participate at all
Article 96 also addresses a different situation — one spouse being incapacitated or otherwise unable to take part in administering the property. There, the other spouse may assume sole administration, but even then cannot dispose of or encumber community property without court authority or the incapacitated spouse's written consent; doing so without either makes the transaction void, though it may still be salvaged as a continuing offer if later accepted or authorized. This is a distinct scenario from an ordinary disagreement between two spouses who are both able to participate.
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 →