3-1 COOK v.

MCMICKING
March 3, 1914 27 Phil. 10 MORELAND, J.
Art. 1490 Jan Harrley Pandy

Petitioners: Respondents:
NELLIE LOUISE COOK J. MC-MICKING
Doctrine:
Facts:
1. On August 8, 1912, an injunction was granted by a judge of the Court of First Instance
of Manila restraining the sale of a certain property levied upon under an execution
issued upon a judgment rendered in the case of Johnson v Edward cook.
2. Petitioner is the wife of Edward Cook and the absolute owner of a piece of land situated
in Paco, Manila, 913 sqm, and that the same is registered in her name under the Torrens
Law by Cert. No. 130.
3. A judgment was entered against Edward Cook for the sum of P10,000 in the Court of
First Instance, that by such judgment, an execution was issued and levied upon the land
described in the complaint as belonging to the petitioner and that the same was
advertised for sale. Petitioner, thus prays for an injunction permanently prohibiting
respondents from selling the said land.
4. The Torrens title introduced in evidence by the petitioner was obtained in the name of
her husband Edward Cook. The husband transferred to the petitioner the land in
question.
5. In 1911, petitioner’s husband Edward Cook, became indebted to Johnson in the sum of
P10,000. A levy was made upon the lands described in the complaint.
6. Defendants claim that the transfer from petititioner’s husband to her was completely
void under Art. 1458 of the Civil Code and that, the property still remains the property
of Edward Cook, thus subject to levy under execution against him.
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. W/N the transfer from petitioner’s husband to his wife (petitioner) 1. NO
was completely void under Art. 1458 of the Civil Code.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

1. The position taken by appellants is untenable. They are not in a position to challenge the
validity of the transfer. They 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 question at the time the transfer occurred.

2. Although certain transfers from husband to wife or from wife to husband are prohibited in
the article referred to (Art. 1458), such prohibition can be taken advantage of only by persons
who bear such a relation to the parties making the transfer or to the property itself that such
transfer interferes with their rights or interests. Unless such a relationship appears the transfer
cannot be attacked.

2. So far as the record of this case demonstrates the property in question is owned by the
plaintiff and is not subject to levy and sale under the execution in this case,