Medina v Collector of Internal Revenue

G.R. No. L-15113 January 28, 1961

FACTS. On May 20, 1944, Antonio Medina married Antonia Rodriguez. Petitioner
acquired forest, concessions in the municipalities of San Mariano and Palanan in the
Province of Isabela. The logs cut and removed by the petitioner from his concessions were
sold to different persons in Manila through his agent, Mariano Osorio.

Antonia engaged in business as a lumber dealer; petitioner sold to her almost all the
logs produced in his San Mariano concession. Mrs. Medina, in turn, sold the logs bought
from her husband through the same agent. The proceeds were, upon instructions from
petitioner, either received by Osorio for petitioner or deposited by said agent in
petitioner's current account with the Philippine National Bank.

The Collector considered the sales made by Mrs. Medina as the petitioner's original
sales taxable and, therefore, imposed a tax assessment on petitioner, calling for the
payment of P4, 553.54 as deficiency sales taxes and surcharges from 1949 to 1952.

Petitioner protested the assessment; however, respondent Collector insisted on his

demand.

ID., PETITIONERS ARGUMENT. There exists an alleged premarital agreement of

complete separation of properties between him and his wife; that the assessment for the
years 1946 to 1952 had already prescribed.

ID., RESPONDENTS DEFENSE. (a) there was no premarital agreement of absolute

separation of property between the Medina spouse; and (b) assuming that there was such
an agreement, the sales in question made by petitioner to his wife were fictitious,
simulated, and not bona fide.
 ISSUE. Can the sales made by the petitioner to his wife be considered as his original
taxable sales?

RULING. NO

Firstly, the circumstantial evidence is against petitioner's claim. It appears that at

the time of the marriage between petitioner and his wife, they neither had any property
nor business of their own, as to have really urged them to enter into the supposed property
agreement.

Secondly, the testimony that the separation of property agreement was recorded in
the Registry of Property three months before the marriage is patently absurd, since such a
prenuptial agreement could not be effective before marriage is celebrated, and would
automatically be cancelled if the union was called off.

Third, despite their insistence on the existence of the ante nuptial contract, the
couple did not act in accordance with its alleged covenants. It was proven that even during
their taxable years; the ownership, usufruct, and administration of their properties and
business were in the husband.

Fourth, although petitioner already knew that the primary reason why the sales of
logs to his wife could not be considered as the original taxable sales was because of the
express prohibition found in Article 1490 of the Civil Code of sales between spouses
married under a community system; yet it was not until July of 1954 that he alleged, for the
first time, the existence of the supposed property separation agreement.

Contracts violative of the provisions of Article 1490 of the Civil Code are null and
void. Being void transactions, the sales made by the petitioner to his wife were correctly
disregarded by the Collector in his tax assessments that considered as the taxable sales
those made by the wife through the spouses' common agent, Mariano Osorio. In upholding
that stand, the Court below committed no error.