uy v. ca.docx

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 47 | Comments: 0 | Views: 192
of 1
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

JOSE UY and his Spouse GLENDA J. UY and GILDA L. JARDELEZA, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORO L. JARDELEZA, respondents.
G.R. No. 109557

November 29, 2000

Facts:
Gilda Jardeleza instituted before the trial court to authorize her, in view of the
comatose condition of her husband, Ernesto Jardeleza, Sr., to dispose of their
conjugal property in favor of co-petitioners, their daughter and son in law, for the
ostensible purpose of "financial need in their personal, business and medical
expenses of her ‘incapacitated’ husband." On the other hand, the parents of the
man (private respondent) filed a petition for guardianship over the man.
Issue:
Whether the appointment of the spouse as the sole administrator shall be in
summary proceeding under Article 253 of the Family Code if it involves a situation
where the subject spouse is incompetent.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of one of the spouses as the
sole administrator under the second paragraph of Article 96 and 124 shall be in
summary proceedings under Article 253 of the Family Code if it involves a situation
where the other spouse is absent or separated in fact or has abandoned the other or
consent is withheld.
However, if the subject spouse “is an incompetent” who is in a comatose or
semi-comatose condition, a victim of stroke, cerebrovascular accident, without
motor and mental faculties, and with a diagnosis of brain stem infarct, the proper
remedy is a judicial guardianship proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised
Rules of Court and not a summary proceeding under the Family Code.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close