Text of the provision
Art. 96. 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.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. 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. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.
(206a)
Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, approved July 6, 1987. The Code took effect on August 3, 1988 (Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005). Reproduced in full.
What this article means
Administration of the community property is joint — both spouses, together. Article 96 then handles the hard cases. On a genuine disagreement, the husband's decision prevails, but the wife may go to court for a remedy within five years of the contract. If a spouse is incapacitated, the other may administer alone.
The most litigated part is the last: a sole administrator's powers do not include selling or encumbering community property without the other spouse's written consent or a court order. A sale or mortgage made without either is void — not merely voidable. The Code softens this only by treating the flawed transaction as a continuing offer that becomes binding if the other spouse later accepts (or the court authorizes) before it is withdrawn.
Why this matters
This is the provision behind countless property disputes: a spouse who sells conjugal land without the other's written consent has passed nothing — the buyer's title is void. Anyone dealing in property owned by a married person needs both signatures.
Questions about this provision
- My husband sold our house without my written consent — is the sale void or can I still ratify it?
- My spouse had a stroke and can no longer decide anything — can I manage our community property alone?
- When spouses disagree about managing community property, whose decision prevails?
Related provisions
- Article 98 — the parallel bar on donating community property without consent.
- Article 97 — what a spouse CAN dispose of unilaterally (their interest, by will).
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Alberto C. Hidalgo vs. Conrado Bascuguin and Evelyn Flaminiano Hidalgo, G.R. No. 233217, October 6, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.