Medina v.

Collector, GR L-15113, 01/28/1961

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:
The sale from Antonio to Antonia was null because it is expressly prohibited in the Article 1490
of the Civil Code

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 prenuptial 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.

.
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.