HARDING vs.

COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY

10 Augusy 1918 | Fisher, J.
Plaintiff: Mrs. Henry E. Harding and husband
Defendant: Commercial Union Assurance Company

1.
2.

DOCTRINE (Void Donations)

BRIEF
Mrs. Harding applied for car insurance with Commercial Union
Assurance Company. When the car was destroyed by fire, Mrs. Harding
filed an insurance claim but the Commercial Union denied it. One of the
reasons was that the car does not belong to her since a gift from her
husband is void under the Civil Code. The Court ruled that the transfer
did not interfere with their rights and interests.
FACTS
1. In February 1916, Mrs. Harding applied for car insurance for a
Studebaker she received as a gift from her husband. She was assisted
by Smith, Bell, and Co. which was the duly authorized representative
(insurance agent) of Commercial Union Assurance Company in the
Philippines.
2. The cars value was estimated with the help of an experienced
mechanic (Mr. Server). The car was bought by Mr. Harding for
P2,800.00. The mechanic, considering some repairs done, estimated the
value to be at P3,000.00.
3. This estimated value was the value disclosed by Mrs. Harding to Smith,
Bell, and Co. She also disclosed that the value was an estimate made by
Luneta Garage (which also acts as an agent for Smith, Bell, and Co).
4. In March 1916, a fire destroyed the Studebaker.
5. Mrs. Harding filed an insurance claim but Commercial Union denied it
as it insisted that the representations and averments made as to the
cost of the car were false; and that said statement was a warranty.
6. Commercial Union stated that the car does not belong to
Mrs. Harding because such a gift from her husband is void under
the Civil Code.
Supreme Court: ISSUES of the CASE
ISSUE: Whether or not Mrs. Harding is entitled to the insurance claim. (YES)
RATIO

3.

4.

Commercial Union is not the proper party to attack the validity of

the gift made by Mr. Harding to his wife.
Although certain transfers from husband to wife or from wife to
husband are prohibited in article 1334, 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.
Even assuming they had the legal standing, we cannot say that the gift
of an automobile by a husband to his wife is not a moderate one. It
depends on the circumstances of the parties, which was not disclosed.
The subject property was part of the conjugal property of the Spouses.
It was acquired during the existence of a valid marriage between
Joseph Sr. and Epifania. There was no decree of dissolution of marriage,
nor of their conjugal partnership

RULING: Appeal DENIED.