ESTANISLAO SERRANO vs. MELCHOR SOLOMON [June 29, 1959]  Luneta Garage – agent of Smith Bell & Co.
e – agent of Smith Bell & Co., solicited of Mrs. Harding, insurance
Appeal from CFI Ilocos Sur decision
 Alejandria Feliciano – father is in Hawaii; entrusted to father’s friend, Estanislao
Serrano who took care of her & raised her from 12 until she got married
 June 21, 1948 – Alejandria & Melchor Solomon were married. Before the
ceremony, Solomon executed alleged Deed of Donation w/c stated among others
that he was donating all of his exclusive properties to serve as capital for their
conjugal life & for the maintenance & support of their offsprings. Their children
will inherit such donation but in the absence of children, half of the properties will
go to his brothers/sisters/their heirs if he dies before his wife or if his wife dies
before him, half will go to those who raised his wife.
 March 2, 1949 – Alejandria died.
 Few months after – Estanislao instituted action to enforce & implement terms of
alleged donation. Being the one who raised Alejandria, he believed he had the
right to half of Melchor’s property.
 CFI: donation was not a donation propter nuptias because it was not made in
consideration of marriage & it was not made to one or both parties of the
marriage
ISSUE: WON the donation made by Melchor can be considered as a donation
propter nuptias.
HELD: No alleged donation is null & void. CFI affirmed. Estanislao won’t get anything.
RATIO: Whether you apply Art. 1327 of the old CC or Art. 126 of the new CC, the
result would be the same, donations propter nuptias are only those bestowed
(1)before the celebration of marriage, (2)in consideration of the same & (3)upon one
or both of the spouses. Melchor’s donation violated conditions 2 & 3. It was not in
consideration solely of the marriage, it had additional terms like the marriage had to
be childless and one of the spouses had to die before the other. Also, it was not in
favor of Alejandria. Instead, it was in favor of her parents & those who raised her.
Based on Manresa’s commentary, donations granted to persons other than the
spouses even though founded on the marriage are excluded. It’s not a donation inter
vivos (during their lifetime) either, because donee never accepted it by same
instrument of donation or in separate document as required by law. It’s not a donation
mortis causa (upon death) either. It has to be governed by provisions on the
disposition execution of wills to be appreciated as such. Besides, donor is still alive. It
will only be operational upon his death.
HARDING vs. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY [August 10, 1918)
Action to recover damages
Plaintiff: Mrs. Henry Harding & husband, residents of Manila
Defendant: Commercial Union Assurance Company, Great Britain company, w/agent
Smith, Bell & Co, a Philippine corporation
 1913 – Levy Hermanos, Studebaker automobile Manila agent, sold automobile
no. 1063 to John Carson for P3,200.00
 Oct. 14, 1914 – Carson sold car to Henry Harding for P1,500.00
 Nov. 19, 1914 – Mr. Harding sold car to J. Brannigan of Los Baños, Laguna for
P2,000.00
 Dec. 20, 1915 – J.C. Graham Los Baños sold automobile to Henry Harding for
P2,800.00.
 Jan. 16, 1915 – Henry gave automobile to wife. Repaired & repainted at the
Luneta Garage amounting to P900.00.
of said automobile. Garage manager Mr. Server, experienced automobile
mechanic testified that automobile costs about P3,000.00, this was the price
agreed upon by both parties. Mrs. Harding was charged sum of P150.00 / 5% of
P3,000.00 estimated value. Among the terms of the insurance was that in cases
of loss or damage of any cause, the insurance company will indemnify insured up
to agreed amount of P3,000.00 or value of car.
 March 24, 1916 – automobile was totally destroyed by fire. Iron parts were sold
by Smith Bell however, no amount was tendered to Harding until such time that
court was opened for trial. Harding furnished Smith Bell w/ proof of her loss &
interest & she likewise performed all conditions under said policy. However,
Smith Bell did not pay. They claim that Mrs. Harding falsified the value &
ownership of the automobile.
 Lower Court – decided in favor of Harding
ISSUE/S AND RATIO:
1. WON Mr. Diehl’s testimony should be excluded. – Not important. It merely
showed alleged actual value of the automobile. This evidence is irrelevant.
2. WON donation/Mr. Harding’s act of giving the automobile to his wife is void.
– NO
a. defendant claims that gift is void under CC Art. 1334 w/c states that “All gifts
between spouses during the marriage shall be void. Moderate gifts w/c the
spouses bestow on each other on festive days of the family are not included
in the rule. Thus, they claim that she has no interest in the issuance of the
policy.
b. In Cook vs. McMicking, the SC held that parties who have no relation to the
property owners at the time of transfer or those who do not have any interest
in the properties involved, cannot challenge the validity of the transfer.
c. Burden of proof that the gift doesn’t fall under the exception (moderate gifts)
falls on defendant who raised this as a defense. A car may be a moderate
gift depending on the circumstances of the parties. Such info is not disclosed
by the records.
3. WON value of automobile was falsified. – NO.
a. There’s even proof that it cost more than the amount mentioned. (purchase
price of P2,800.00 + P900.00 for repairs & repainting is more than stated
amount of P3,000.00)
b. Unfair to hold it void simply because outlay represented was made by Mr.
Harding & not his wife, to whom he had given his old vehicle.
c. Value did not actually come from Mrs. Harding. In fact, she only acted upon
information given her by her husband and by Mr. Server, the manager of
Luneta Garage w/c is an agent of Smith Bell. There was even an examiner
who inspected the automobile before policy was issued.
d. In Union Insurance Company vs. Wilkinson, the SC held that it is normal
for insurance agencies to rely on their agents to deal with their clients that
these clients often do not know anything about the company or its officers.
But despite this set-up the company will still be responsible to the clients for
acts of its agents will be construed as acts of the principal/company itself.
Same ruling in Rowley vs. Empire Ins. Co. which held that Though risk in
policies technically proceeds from insured, it will still be regarded as act of
insurers.
 e. Value = market price if offered for sale. In insurance policies, assured can
only estimate such value. It’s enough that the assured carries out terms of
the contract and observed good faith in doing his duties/obligations.
f. Insurance law (Act No. 2427), Sec. 163 states that effect of valuation in
policy of fire insurance is similar to policy of marine insurance (Sec. 149) w/c
states that valuation is conclusive if insured had an insurable interest & was
not guilty of fraud
HOLDING: Commercial Union Assurance Company is bound by their contract w/Mrs.
Harding. She had an insurable interest and she did not use employ fraud in procuring
the insurance. Lower Court affirmed.