PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Mrs. Henry E. Harding and her husband DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Commercial Union Assurance Company FACTS:
Mr. Henry E. Harding purchased a Studebaker automobile, which he then gave to his wife.
With his consent, she acquired from defendant’s agent, Smith, Bell & Company, Ltd., an insurance policy for the car worth P3,000, based on the its “present value.”
The car was totally destroyed in a fire, and
Thus, the instant petition is for the recovery of the P3,000 from the defendant. Commercial Union argued that because the car was a gift from Mrs. Harding’s husband, such gift is void under the Civil Code, Art. 1334 of which states,
“All gifts between spouses during the marriage shall be void. Moderate gifts which the spouses bestow on each other on festive days of the family are not included in this rule.”
ISSUES: benefits of the insurance policy.
RATIO: challenge the validity of the donation.
Commercial Union bore absolutely no relation to the Hardings during the donation, and thus had no rights or interests in it at the time.
Certain transfers from husband to wife or vice-versa are prohibited. However, the prohibition can be taken advantage of only by
Harding was guilty of fraud. An expert mechanic assessed the car, valuing it at P3,000. The car’s cost, repairs included, was even proven to be greater than the amount of the insurance. Mrs.
Harding had only given the defendant the value of P3,000 based on the assessment of the mechanic—which, the Court said, was not proof of bad faith.
Thus, because the defendant had agreed to the worth of the car, it was bound by this value.
Having found both the donation and the valuation valid, the Court concluded that Mrs.
Harding was entitled to the benefits of her car’s insurance policy.
Sumbad v. CA
unregistered land in Sitio Sum-at, Bontoc. After he passed away in 1977, Maria sold lots including the Sum-at property. She died in 1988.A year after, petitioners Emilie Sumbad and Beatrice Tait, daughters of George Tait with Agata Tait, brought an action for quieting of title, nullification of deeds of sale and recovery of possession with damages against private respondents (those who bought the land from Maria). Petitioners contend that the Deed of Donation is void because:
According to their witness, it is forged by a certain Raquel Tait, their father’s ward
It was made in violation of Art 133 of the Civil Code, now Art 87 of the Family Code
It was notarized by a person who had no authority to act as a notary public
Maria had no authority to sell the Sum-at property, making the sales in favour of the private respondents null and void
Since they only learned of the sales in 1988, when Maria became seriously ill, they are not barred from bringing the present action.
ISSUES:
1) WON the donation executed by George Tait in favour of Maria Tait is valid and effective 2) WON laches barred the claim of the
plaintiffs.
HELD:
1) Donation is VALID.
The Court ruled that their witness’s testimony of the forgery was incredible, vague, and grossly unconvincing since the statements doesn’t ring true and appear to have been rehearsed. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The petitioners should’ve presented handwriting experts to support their claim.
They also claim that the deed of
donation is invalid under Art 749 of the Civil Code which requires a public instrument as a requisite for the validity of donations of immovable property.
They contend that the person who notarized the deed had no authority to do so. However, the person who notarized it was the deputy clerk of court who acted “For and in the absence of Clerk of Court”. In accordance with the presumption that official duty has been performed, it’s void. This prohibition doesn’t apply when the donation takes effect after the death of the donor. Neither does this prohibition apply to moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing”?
No. Although it was ruled in Matabuena v Cervantes that Art 133 extends to common-law relations (as can now be seen in Art 87 FC:
“...the prohibition shall apply to persons living together as husband and fife without a valid marriage.”), the petitioners never invoked this as a ground to invalidate the deed of donation.
Their attack on its validity centred solely on the allegation that it was forged and that the notarized by an unauthorized person. Litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice.
o Assuming that they aren’t prevented by this rule, they were still unable to present evidence in support of such a claim. The evidence on record doesn’t show whether George was married to Maria, and if so, where the marriage took place. If Maria was not married to their father, evidence should’ve been presented to show that at the time the deed was executed, they were still
Sumbad v. CA
147 332 Falcone
Persons and Family Relations
remaining common-law-relations. The only testimony that they have to that effect is that in 1941, Maria became their stepmother. There was no evidence presented that their father and Maria were still together until 1974, when the donation was made.
2) Petitioners are guilty of laches for waiting 12 years before claiming their inheritance.
Their father died in 1977 but they only brought present action in 1989. This precludes them from assailing the donation made by their father in favour of Maria.
**Laches – failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by exerting due diligence, could or should have done earlier.
All in all, petitioners have not sufficiently shown the nullity of private respondents’ title to the lots. Furthermore, assuming that they never knew of the existence of the Deed of Donation, it’s impossible for them to not notice that the land had been occupied by the defendants and their families. They waited until Maria had died before assailing the validity of the sales.