The Philippine Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, as amended) establishes a clear regime of joint administration and mutual consent for the disposition of marital property. One spouse cannot unilaterally sell, donate, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of or encumber joint assets without the written consent of the other or judicial authority. Any such transaction is void ab initio, and the property remains part of the community or conjugal partnership. This principle is non-negotiable and applies uniformly across the default property regimes.

Applicable Property Regimes

Absolute Community of Property (ACP) – Articles 75–108
Default regime for marriages celebrated on or after 3 August 1988 in the absence of a valid marriage settlement. All properties owned by the spouses at the time of marriage and all properties acquired thereafter (except those expressly excluded under Article 92) form part of the community property.
Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) – Articles 109–133
Governs marriages celebrated before 3 August 1988 (under the Civil Code) and marriages after that date where the spouses validly agreed in a marriage settlement to adopt CPG. Separate properties remain exclusive, while properties acquired through onerous title during the marriage belong to the partnership.
Complete Separation of Property – Articles 143–146
Applies when stipulated in a marriage settlement or ordered by the court (e.g., judicial separation of property under Articles 134–142). Each spouse retains full ownership and administration of his or her own properties. The rules discussed below on unilateral disposition do not apply to exclusive properties under this regime.

The rules on unilateral disposition without consent apply only to community property (ACP) and conjugal partnership property (CPG). Exclusive properties of each spouse may be freely alienated without the other spouse’s consent.

Joint Administration and the Requirement of Mutual Consent

Article 96 (ACP) and Article 124 (CPG) are substantially identical and provide:

“The administration and enjoyment of the community/conjugal property shall belong to both spouses jointly. …

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.”

Key points from these provisions and consistent Supreme Court rulings:

Both spouses are co-administrators.
In case of disagreement on ordinary acts of administration, the husband’s decision prevails, but the wife may seek judicial recourse within five (5) years from the date of the transaction (Article 96, par. 1 and Article 124, par. 1).
Acts of strict dominion (sale, donation, mortgage, lease for more than 6 years, loan with conjugal property as collateral, compromise of conjugal rights, etc.) require the written consent of the other spouse or court authorization.
Lack of consent renders the transaction void ab initio, not merely voidable (Guiang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125172, 26 June 1998; Heirs of Christina Ayuste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118784, 2 September 1998; Spouses Ravina v. Spouses Villamor, G.R. No. 172523, 26 November 2014; Spouses Aggabao v. Spouses Parulan, G.R. No. 165803, 8 September 2010).

Nature of the Nullity: Void, Not Voidable

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the absence of spousal consent makes the transaction void from the beginning:

No title passes to the buyer.
The property remains community/conjugal property.
The aggrieved spouse (or heirs) may file an action for annulment of title, reconveyance, or declaration of nullity at any time because nullity of void contracts is imprescriptible (Article 1410, Civil Code; Bucoy v. Paulino, G.R. No. L-25775, 26 April 1968; Spouses Rigor v. Spouses Mateo, G.R. No. 207969, 3 August 2015).
Registration of the void deed in the Register of Deeds does not validate the transfer nor clothe the buyer with valid title (Spouses Bautista v. Silva, G.R. No. 157434, 19 September 2006).

The “Continuing Offer” Rule (Article 96, par. 2 and Article 124, par. 2)

“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.”

Practical implications:

If the non-consenting spouse later ratifies the sale in writing (preferably via public instrument), the transaction becomes valid from the beginning.
If the non-consenting spouse refuses and files a case, the sale remains void.
The buyer cannot compel ratification; only the non-consenting spouse can perfect the contract by acceptance.

Protection of Innocent Third Parties: Very Limited

The general rule is that a void deed conveys no title, even to an innocent purchaser for value.

Exceptions recognized in jurisprudence are extremely narrow and almost never applied to real property:

When the selling spouse appears to be unmarried in the title (no annotation “married to ___”), and the buyer had no notice of the marriage, some older cases allowed the buyer to retain title under the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens title after the lapse of one year (now rarely applied).
In practice, since 1976 (PD 957 and subsequent regulations), certificates of title of married persons almost always carry the annotation of the spouse’s name. Thus, buyers are deemed to have constructive notice of the marriage and the need for spousal consent.

The current doctrine is strict: lack of spousal consent = void sale, even against innocent purchasers (Spouses Domingo v. Reed, G.R. No. 157701, 9 December 2005; Spouses Rigor v. Spouses Mateo, supra).

Movables vs. Immovables

While the Family Code does not distinguish, jurisprudence sometimes applies Article 493 of the Civil Code (each co-owner may alienate his pro-indiviso share) by analogy to movables sold in the ordinary course of business or household management. However, when the movable is of considerable value (e.g., a car titled in the name of one spouse but paid for with conjugal funds), courts still declare the sale void without consent (Janago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108706, 14 October 1997).

For household furniture and ordinary personal effects, the managing spouse may dispose without consent if done in the ordinary course of family business.

Effect on Property Division Upon Dissolution of Marriage

Legal Separation (Articles 102, 129)
The community or partnership is dissolved, and the net assets are divided equally. A void sale by one spouse is disregarded; the property (or its equivalent value if already transferred to a third party who cannot be reached) is included in the inventory and charged against the share of the guilty spouse if possible.
Annulment or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
- If marriage is annulled: ACP/CPG is dissolved; properties are liquidated as in legal separation (Article 50–52).
- If marriage is void ab initio and parties acted in bad faith: properties are governed by co-ownership rules (Article 147 or 148); unilateral disposition without consent is likewise void as against the other “co-owner.”
Death of One Spouse
The community/partnership is dissolved. The surviving spouse retains his/her half; the deceased’s half passes to heirs. A void sale made by the deceased spouse during the marriage is null; the property forms part of the estate.

Remedies of the Aggrieved Spouse

Action for declaration of nullity of the deed of sale/title (imprescriptible).
Action for reconveyance.
Quieting of title.
Damages against the erring spouse (moral/exemplary if bad faith is proven).
Criminal action (estafa through falsification if the erring spouse forged the other’s signature; perjury if marital status was misrepresented).

Judicial Authorization in Lieu of Consent

When the other spouse:

is incapacitated,
is judicially declared absentee,
refuses consent unreasonably, or
is separated in fact,

the interested spouse may seek court authorization under Article 96 or 124 in conjunction with Rule 92 of the Rules of Court (appointment of administrator) or Articles 239–243 (absence).

The court will grant authority only if the transaction is necessary for the family’s benefit or preservation of the property.

Practical Notes for Practitioners and Spouses

Always require the original certificate of title and verify the annotation of marriage.
Notaries public who notarize deeds without spousal consent may be administratively sanctioned.
Banks and financing institutions uniformly require spousal consent for mortgages or loans secured by conjugal realty.
Prenuptial agreements adopting complete separation of property eliminate most disputes over unilateral disposition.

The Philippine legal system gives paramount importance to mutual consent in the disposition of marital property. Any attempt by one spouse to unilaterally sell joint assets without the other’s written consent or court authority is juridically non-existent. The transaction is void, the property remains marital property, and the aggrieved spouse’s rights are fully protected without time limitation.