Short answer. Five years. Article 124 gives both spouses joint administration of the conjugal partnership, but where they disagree, the husband's decision prevails, subject to the wife's recourse to the court for a proper remedy. She must bring that recourse within five years from the date of the contract implementing the decision.

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 124 — Joint Administration; Disposition Requires Consent. Read the full provision →

Joint administration under the conjugal partnership

Article 124 governs marriages under the conjugal partnership of gains, a property regime distinct from the absolute community, in which the spouses' gains during the marriage are pooled and shared. Under it, the administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property belong to both spouses jointly. As with the community regime, neither spouse is meant to run the couple's common property alone; management is shared. The article then confronts the practical problem of what to do when the two jointly empowered spouses disagree on a decision about that property.

The tie-breaker and the wife's remedy

The solution mirrors the one for the community regime. 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. The husband's decision breaks the deadlock so the partnership's affairs can proceed, but the wife retains the right to seek relief in court if she believes the decision was improper. She is not simply bound by her husband's choice; a judicial remedy remains open to her, provided she pursues it in time.

The five-year window to go to court

The wife's recourse must be exercised within five years from the date of the contract that implements the disputed decision. The period runs from that implementing transaction, giving a concrete starting point for the deadline. A wife who objects to how her husband exercised the prevailing decision should therefore raise the matter in court well within those five years. Once the period expires, the opportunity to obtain a court remedy on that basis is lost, and the husband's decision, and the transaction carrying it out, can no longer be challenged on this ground.

Void dispositions without the other spouse's consent

Article 124 also contains a stricter rule for transfers. A disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property by one spouse without the other's written consent or court authority is void. The law, however, treats it as a continuing offer that may become binding if the non-consenting spouse later accepts it, or the court authorises it, before the offer is withdrawn. This differs from the tie-breaker: it deals with dealings made without the required consent, which are void, as opposed to decisions made over the wife's objection, which she may challenge within the five-year period.

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.