MRS. HENRY E. HARDING, and her husband, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, defendant-appellant. Doctr ne!

A wife has an insurable interest on the property given to her by her husband. "AC#S! 1. MRS. Henry E. Harding was the owner of a Studebaker automobile. a. His husband gave the car to her. b. #ransact ons! anson s-! "r. Harding sold -! #. $rannigan -! .%rahan -! "r. Harding -! "rs. Harding &. ommercial union through its 'hilippine agent issued to "rs. Harding and his husband, an insurance policy on the automobile. a. (he sum was '),*** b. 'remium paid+ '1,* ). Said automobile was destroyed by fire -. ommercial .nion refused to pay the insurance claim to "rs. Harding ,. R#C! ordered defendant to pay /. SC+ 0efendant appealed 1. ommercial .nion2s contended that "rs. Harding had no nsurab$e nterest as she was not the owner of the automobile at the time of the issuance of the policy+ a. (hat the act of giving the car to "rs. Harding by her husband was void, citing the Article 1))- of the ivil ode which provides that 3All gifts between spouses during the marriage shall be void. "oderate gifts which the spouse bestow on each other on festive days of the family are not included in this rule4 b. (hat since the gift was void, the car remains the property of the husband. ISSUE%&! an the wife her insurance claim over the car5 - 6es 1. ommercial .nion Assurance ompany is not in a position to challenge the validity of the transfer made by "r. Harding to "rs. Harding. a. (hey bore absolutely no relation to the parties to the transfer at the time it occurred and had no rights or interests inchoate, present, remote, or otherwise, in the property in 7uestion at the time the transfer occurred. b. Although certain transfers from husband to wife or vice-versa are prohibited in the ivil ode provision used by insurance company, such prohibition, however, can be taken advantage of only by persons who bear such relation to the parties making the transfer or to the property itself that such transfer interferes with their right or interests. .nless such relationship appears the transfer cannot be attacked. c. Even assuming that defendant might have invoked article 1))- as a defense, the burden would be upon it to show that the gift in 7uestion does not fall within the e8ception therein established. 9e cannot say, as a matter of law, that the gift of an automobile by a husband to his wife is not a moderate one. 9hether it is or is not would depend upon the circumstances of the parties, as to which nothing is disclosed by the record ISSUE%'! 0oes "rs. Haridng have an insurable interest5 - 6es &. Also the trial court found, which were supported by evidence, that "rs. Harding had an insurable interest over the car. a. :n fact, "rs. Harding furnished the insurance company the proofs of her loss and interest, and otherwise performed all the conditions of said policy on her part. b. She has an insurable interest as she is the o(ner of the car. 9e are of the opinion that plaintiff was the owner of the automobile and had an insurable interest therein; that there was no fraud on her part in procuring the insurance; that the valuation of the automobile, for the purposes of the insurance, is binding upon the defendant, and that the <udgment of the court below is correct and must be affirmed, with interest, the costs of this appeal to be paid by the appellant. So ordered.