Scribd
Upload
146 views1 page

Conjugal Property Management Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that for a petition filed regarding a conjugal property, it is sufficient for the certification of non-forum shopping to be signed by only one of the spousal petitioners. The petitioners, a married couple, filed a motion to set aside the demolition of their property by the sheriff due to an adverse court ruling. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on the basis that only the husband signed the certification. The Supreme Court held that since the property was conjugal in nature, the husband could validly sign on behalf of both spouses according to rules regarding joint administration of conjugal property.

Uploaded by

Jam Zaldivar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
146 views1 page

Conjugal Property Management Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that for a petition filed regarding a conjugal property, it is sufficient for the certification of non-forum shopping to be signed by only one of the spousal petitioners. The petitioners, a married couple, filed a motion to set aside the demolition of their property by the sheriff due to an adverse court ruling. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on the basis that only the husband signed the certification. The Supreme Court held that since the property was conjugal in nature, the husband could validly sign on behalf of both spouses according to rules regarding joint administration of conjugal property.

Uploaded by

Jam Zaldivar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Docena v.

Lapesura
G.R. No. 140153 | March 28, 2001 | J. Gonzaga-Reyes
Conjugal Partnership of Gains: Joint Administration

DOCTRINE: Joint management or administration does not require that the husband and wife always act
together.

SUMMARY: The petitioners filed before a motion to set aside the demolition of their property. CA denied
the petition on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping attached thereto was signed by
only one of the petitioners. SC ruled that since the petitioners are spouses and the property is conjugal
in nature, it is sufficient that the certification is signed by only one of the petitioners.

FACTS:
1977 Casiano Hombria (private respondent) filed a complaint for the recovery of a parcel of land
against spouses (petitioners) Antonia and Alfreda Docena, who are claiming ownership of the
land based on occupation since time immemorial.
1989 RTC ruled in favor of the spouses Docena; but CA reversed the judgment, ordering the
spouses to vacate the land and to pay Hombria rental fee until they have actually vacated the
premises
The sheriff issued a writ of demolition, which the spouses filed a motion to set aside
Judge Lapesura (public respondent) denied the motion
CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the certification of non-forum shopping attached
thereto was signed by only one of the petitioners (the husband).

ISSUE: W/N it is sufficient that the certification of non-forum shopping is signed by only one of the
petitioners YES

RULING:
FC 124 provides that the administration of the conjugal property belongs to the husband and the
wife jointly. However, unlike an act of alienation or encumbrance where the consent of both
spouses is required, joint management or administration does not require that the husband and
wife always act together.
o Each spouse may validly exercise full power of management alone, subject to the
intervention of the court in proper cases as provided under FC 124.
The wife, as pointed out in the Motion for Reconsideration was in the province of Guian, Samar,
whereas the petition was prepared in Metro Manila.
o A rigid application of the rules on forum shopping that would disauthorize a husband's
signing the certification in his behalf and that of his wife is too harsh and is clearly
uncalled for

You might also like