Short answer. Five years. Under Article 96, the spouses jointly administer the absolute community property, but in case of disagreement the husband's decision prevails, subject to the wife's recourse to the court for a proper remedy. She must avail of that recourse within five years from the date of the contract implementing the decision she objects to.

What the law says

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 of the absolute community

Under the absolute community of property, the default regime for many marriages, Article 96 provides that the administration and enjoyment of the community property belong to both spouses jointly. Neither spouse is meant to manage the common property alone; decisions about it are shared. This joint authority reflects the equal footing of the spouses in the marriage. The question the article then answers is what happens when the two spouses, jointly in charge, cannot agree on a particular decision about the community property.

The husband's decision prevails, but the wife has recourse

The article supplies a tie-breaker, coupled with a safeguard. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision prevails, 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. So the husband's view controls in the moment, allowing the couple's affairs to move forward, but the wife is not left without remedy. She may take the matter to court to seek relief from a decision she believes wrongly overrode her, turning to a neutral forum rather than being simply bound by her husband's choice.

The five-year deadline

The wife's recourse is time-limited. She must avail of it within five years from the date of the contract implementing the decision she objects to. The clock runs from that implementing contract, not from the disagreement in the abstract, so the deadline is tied to a concrete transaction. A wife who wishes to challenge such a decision should therefore act well within the five years; letting the period lapse forecloses the court remedy the article gives her, and the husband's prevailing decision becomes unassailable on this ground.

A separate protection for dispositions without consent

Article 96 also guards against unilateral dispositions. Where one spouse disposes of or encumbers community property without the other's written consent or court authority, the transaction is void, though the law treats it as a continuing offer that can ripen into a binding contract if the other spouse later accepts or the court authorises it before the offer is withdrawn. This is distinct from the tie-breaker rule: it addresses transfers made without the required consent, not merely decisions made over the other spouse's objection, and it renders such unauthorised dealings void rather than simply challengeable.

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.

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.