SUBJECT: TOPIC:

Dona
CASE NAME:
Persons HARDING vs. Commercial Union
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
Art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouses during the
marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any
family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid
marriage. (133a)

PONENTE: FISHER, J. Case Date: August 10, 1918

DETAILED FACTS:
 December 20, 1915: Studebaker automobile was bought by Mr Harding for P 2,800
 January 1, 1916: Mr. Harding gave the auto to his wife as a present
o Repaired and repainted at a cost of P900 at Luneta Garage
o While at garage, an insurance policy was taken out on the car, signed by Mrs. Harding and prepared by a
representative solicited by Mrs. Harding
o After an experienced automobile mechanic testified regarding the worth of the car, the defendant
(Commercial Union Ass. Co) issued a policy of insurance on the car
 March 24, 1916: Automobile was completely destroyed by fire
o Mrs. Harding provided proof of the loss and performed all acts necessary, as stipulated in the insurance
policy and yet, the defendant has failed to pay for the loss.
 Defendant argues that the Hardings lied about the ownership of the car at the time the insurance policy was made
saying that the donation made by Mr. Harding to his wife is void Citing Art. 1334 of the Civil Code which states:
o “All gifts between spouses during the marriage shall be void. Moderate gifts which the spouses can
bestow on each other on festive days of the family are not included in this rule”

ISSUE:
WON Mrs. Henry E. Harding owns the automobile
in question and therefore has insurable interest in
the automobile - YES
HOLDING:
YES via Donation by her husband
 The husband gave the car to the wife BEFORE the
insurance policy was made. Acc. to the court: Defendants
are not in the 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. (Cook vs.
McMicking)
 Defendant has burden of proof to show that the transfer is
NOT under the exception provided by law (Defendant
failed to do this)
 “We cannot say as a matter of law that the gift of an
automobile [...] is not a moderate one. Whether it is or it is
not would depend upon the circumstances of the parties,
as to which nothing is disclosed by the record.”

RULING:
GRANTED
Acc. to Tolentino:
Donations may be assailed by:
 Donor or his heirs
 Other person whose rights and interests has been prejudiced by the transfer