G.R. No. L-15774 November 29, 1920PILAR C. DE LIM, plaintif-appellant, vs.SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CMPAN! F CANADA, defendant-appellee.Sanz and Luzuriaga for appellant.Cohn and Fisher for appellee. MALCLM, J.:This is an appeal by plaintiffroman order of the Court of First Instance ofZamboangasustainingademurrertoplaintif'scomplaintuponthegroundthatitfails to state a cause of action.s thedemurrer hadtheefect of admittingthematerial facts set forthinthecomplaint, the facts are those alleged by the plaintif. !n "uly #, $%$&, 'uis 'im y(arciaof Zamboangamadeapplicationtothe)un'ifessuranceCompanyofCanada for a policy of insurance on his life in the sum of *+,,,,. In his application'im designated his -ife, *ilar C. de 'im, the plaintif herein, as the bene.ciary. The.rst premium of */00 -as paid by 'im, and upon such payment the company issued-hat -as called a 1provisional policy.1 'uis 'im y (arcia died on ugust 20, $%$&,after the issuance of the provisional policy but before approval of the application bythehomeo3ceof theinsurancecompany. Theinstant actionisbrought bythebene.ciary, *ilar C. de'im, torecover fromthe)un'ifessuranceCompanyofCanada the sum of *+,,,,, the amount named in the provisional policy.The 1provisional policy1 upon -hich this action rests reads as follo-s4Received 5sub6ecttothefollo-ingstipulationsandagreements7thesumoffour hundredandthirty-threepesos, beingtheamount of the.rst year'spremium for a 'ife ssurance *olicy on the life of 8r. 'uis 9. 'im y (arcia ofZamboangafor*+,,,,, for-hichanapplicationdatedthe#thdayof "uly,$%$&, has been made to the )un 'ife ssurance Company of Canada.The above-mentioned life is to be assured in accordance -ith the terms andconditions contained or inserted by the Company in the policy -hich may begranted by it in this particular case for four months only from the date of theapplication, providedthat the Company shall con.rmthis agreement byissuing a policy on said application -hen the same shall be submitted to the:ead !3ce in 8ontreal. )hould the Company not issue such a policy, thenthis agreement shall be null and void ab initio, and the Company shall be heldnot tohavebeenontheris;at all, but insuchcasetheamount hereinac;no-ledged shall be returned.ua. 12 Thus4 1The annotation then, must be deemedtobea-arrantythattheproperty-asnotinsuredbyanyotherpolicy. Fiolationthereof entitles the insurer to rescind. 5)ec. #%, Insurance ct7 )uchmisrepresentation is fatal in the light of our vie-s in Santa )na v. Commercial /nion)ssuranceCompany, Ltd. ... . Thematerialityof non-disclosureof otherinsurancepoliciesisnotopentodoubt.1 1" samatterof fact, ina$%##decision, &isamisLumber Corp. v. Capital (ns. ' Surety Co., (nc., 14 "ustice ".?.'. Meyes, for this Court,made manifest ane- its adherence to such a principle in the face of an assertion thatthereby a highly unfavorable provision for the insured -ould be accorded recognition.Thisisthelanguageused4 1Theinsurancecontract mayberatheronerous5'onesided', as the lo-er court put it7, but that in itself does not 6ustify the abrogation of itseDpress terms, terms -hich the insured accepted or adhered to and -hich is the la-bet-een the contracting parties.1 15Thereis noescapingtheconclusionthenthat thelo-er court couldnot havedisposed of this case in a -ay other than it did. :ad it acted other-ise, it clearly-ould have disregarded pronouncements of this Court, the compelling force of -hichcannot be denied. There is, to repeat, no 6usti.cation for a reversal.C:=M=F!M=, the decision of the lo-er court of 8arch 0$, $%#& is a3rmed. Jo costs.G.R. No. 2007#4 A%A%>? 7, 201"MALA!AN INSURANCE CMPAN!, INC., *=TITI!J=M, vs.PAP C., L(D. :P+IL. )RANC+;, M=)*!J9=JT.9 = C I ) I ! JMEND