ANTONIO MEDINA, petitioner

VS.
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents
G.R. No. L-15113
January 28, 1961

FACTS:
About May 20, 1944, petitioning taxpayer Antonio Medina married Antonia Rodriguez. Both spouses had
neither property nor business of their own. Antonio later acquired forest concessions in Isabela. From
1946 to 1948, the logs cut and removed from his concessions were sold in Manila through his agent,
Mariano Osorio. In 1949, Antonia, the petitioner’s wife, engaged in lumber business, and on 1952
petitioner sold to her almost all the logs produced. Antonia, in turn, sold the logs in Manila through the
same agent. Upon assessment of their taxes, the Collector of Internal Revenue considered the sale from
Antonio to Antonia as null and void, thus, an additional tax of P4,533.54 was assessed. The spouses
protested the assessment claiming that they had a prenuptial agreement of complete separation of
properties.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale between Antonio and Antonia was valid

RULING:

Article 1490. The husband and the wife cannot sell property to each other, except:

(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements; or

(2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under article 191. (1458a)

The validity of the prenuptial agreement was declared by court null because of material inconsistencies:
First, at the time of marriage, the petitioner and his wife had neither property nor business of their own, as
to have urged them to enter into the supposed property agreement. Second, the spouses’ testimony that the
separation of property agreement was recorded in the Registry of Property 3 months before the marriage,
is absurd, since a pre-nuptial agreement could not be effective before marriage is celebrated. Third,
despite their insistence that the agreement contract exists, the spouses did not act in accordance with its
alleged covenants; but that even during their taxable years, the ownership, usufruct, and administration of
their properties and business were in the husband. Fourth, the Day Book of the Register of Deeds, did not
show that the document in question was among those recorded therein.
The sale from Antonio to Antonia was null because it is expressly prohibited in the Article 1490 of the
Civil Code.

DECISION:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. Contracts
violative of the provisions of Article 1490 of the Civil Code are null and void.