prelim digest.docx

7/24/2019 prelim digest.docx

1/23

1

Constantino vs. Asia Life Insurance Co. [GR# L-1669

August 31, 1950 !era"ta vs. Asia Life Insurance Co.

[GR# L-160 August 31, 1950

Facts: FIRST CASE: Respondent Corporation was paid P 176.04

as annual preiu !" Arcadio Constantino in e#c$an%e &or

polic" no. '()1) on 1'41 &or P (*000 w$ic$ lasted &or )0

"ears. Petitioner Pa+ Constantino was ade !ene,ciar".

-oweer a&ter t$e ,rst pa"ent* no &urt$er preius wereade. T$erea&ter t$e insured died on 1'44. /ater* due to t$e

war apanese occupation2 Respondent Corporation $ad to

close down its !ranc$ in t$e countr".

SEC35 CASE: Siilarl"* Respondent Corporation issued on

1'( anot$er insurance polic" no. 714 &or Spouses Rui+ and

Peralta also &or P (*000* lastin% &or )0 "ears. Re%ular

pa"ents were ade $oweer due also to t$e war* it !ecae

ipossi!le to transact &urt$er pa"ents. T$e insured

neert$eless was a!le to !orrow P )(4 &ro t$e polic". Rui+

died on 1'4. Peralta was t$e !ene,ciar".

In !ot$ cases t$e plainti8s deanded pa"ent !ut was

re&used due to Respondent Corporation9s re&usal on t$e

%round o& nonpa"ent o& t$e preius. T$e lower court

&aored Respondent.

Issues:

12 ;$et$er or not t$e !ene,ciaries are entitled to recoer t$e

aount insured despite nonpa"ent caused !" t$e apanese

occupation.

)2 ;$et$er or not t$e periodic pa"ents o& t$e preius*

t$ose a&ter t$e ,rst* is not an o!li%ation o& t$e insured so t$at

it is not a de!t en&orcea!le !" t$e action o& t$e insurer.

-eld:

12 T$e !ene,ciaries are not entitled to recoer &or non

pa"ent despite t$e presence o& war.

Contracts o& insurance are contracts o& indenit" wit$in t$e

ters and condition &ound t$erein. An insurance copan" &or

certain considerations %uarantee t$e insured a%ainst loss or

daa%e as a" !e stipulated* and w$en called to pa"* t$e

insurer a" insist on t$e &ul,llent o& said stipulations. Failure

o& t$e insured to do so dis


2/23

)

to t$e estate o& t$e deceased insured. Fro t$is ud%ent*

Carponia T. E!rado appealed to t$e Court o& Appeals* !ut on

ul" 11* 1'76* t$e Appellate Court certi,ed t$e case to >s as

inolin% onl" E: ;$et$er or not a coonlaw wi&e naed as

!ene,ciar" in t$e li&e insurance polic" o& a le%all" arried

an clai t$e proceeds t$ereo& in case o& deat$ o& t$e latter.

-E/5: T$e appealed ud%ent o& t$e lower court is $ere!"

aHred.Carponia T. E!rado is $ere!" declared dis


3/23

(

t$e part" t$at caused t$e* t$e Keo o& warrant"K inoDed

!" appellant !ars t$e latter &ro I3 /IAG/E

3n &alse and &raudulent clais

CFI &ound t$at t$e discrepancies were a result o& CJ9s

erroneous interpretation o& t$e proisions o& t$e insurance

policies and clai &ors* caused !" $is iper&ect En%lis$* and

t$at t$e isstateents were innocentl" ade and wit$ou

intent to de&raud. T$e rule is t$at to aoid a polic"* t$e &alse

swearin% ust !e will&ul and wit$ intent to de&raud w$ic$ was

not t$e cause.

3n t$e stora%e o& %asoline

A!i%uities or o!scurities ust !e strictl" interpreted a%ainst

t$e part" t$at caused t$e. T$is ri%id application o& t$e rule

$as !ecoe necessar" in iew o& current !usiness practices

In contrast to contracts entered into !" parties !ar%ainin% on

an e speaDs o& oils. In ordinar" parlance* oilsB

eans lu!ricantsB and not %asoline or Derosene. T$e

pro$i!ition o& Deepin% %asoline could $ae !een e#pressed

clearl" and unistaDa!l".

3n ,re $"drants warrant"

/> is estopped &ro claiin% t$at t$ere was a iolation o

suc$ warrant"* since it Dnew t$at &ro t$e start* t$e nu!er

o& $"drants it deanded neer e#isted* "et it issued policies

and receied preius.

7 vs. anco 'i"i8ino %avings an *ortgage an: ;G.R

1


4/23


5/23

T$e petitioner ar%ues t$at t$e CA erred in re&usin% to appl"

J.R. o. 1(7(( under t$e principle o& res udicata !"

conclusieness o& ud%ent and stare decisis* and i%norin%

t$e oe!er )6* )007 inute resolution in J.R. o. 1776

and t$e April 7* )00' consolidated decision in J.R. os.

1(00* 1(146'* 1171* 1)01* and 166606t$at

reiterated t$e Court9s pronounceent in J.R. o. 1(7((.

T$e petition is JRATE5. T$e assailed decision and resolutiono& t$e Court o& Appeals in CAJ.R. SP o. 107104 are

$ere!" RE?ERSE5 and SET ASI5E. Ciil Case o. )06=

!e&ore Granc$ 170 o& t$e Re%ional Trial Court o& =ala!on*

=etro =anila is $ere!" 5IS=ISSE5.

S>==AR@:

Respondents ,led 17 coplaints a%ainst petitioner includin%

Ciil Case o. )06= !e&ore Granc$ 170 o& t$e RTC o&

=ala!on.

Petitioner oed &or t$e disissal o& t$e case in RTC o&

=ala!on w$ic$ was denied denied* ,ndin% no coonalit" in

t$e 16 ot$er ciil cases since t$e" inoled di8erent causes o&

action.

Petitioner ,led a otion to $old proceedin%s in a!e"ance.

T$e =ala!on RTC %ranted to $old proceedin%s in a!e"ance.

Respondent9s ,led &or otion &or reconsideration !ut it was

denied !" t$e RTC.

Respondent9s eleated its case to t$e CA. T$e CA initiall"

disissed t$e petition* !ut on otion &or reconsideration* it

odi,ed its rulin%* settin% aside t$e RTC9s order to $old

proceedin%s in a!e"ance &or ootness An issue presenting

no real controversy)* due to Court9s disissal o& J.R. o.

1)7611 &or late ,lin%.

T$e respondent oed &or pretrial.

Petitioner opposed t$e otion and ,led a%ain a otion to

suspend proceedin%s.

T$e =ala!on RTC %ranted t$e otion* and a%ain ordered to

$old proceedin%s in a!e"ance.

T$e respondent ,led its copliance wit$ otion to reie

proceedin%s.

T$e petitioner ar%ued t$at t$e proceedin%s s$ould not !e

reied since all t$e recone"ance cases are %rounded on t$e

sae t$eor" o& iplied trust w$ic$ t$is Court in J.R. o.

1(7(( &ound oid &or !ein% ille%al as it was a sc$ee to

circuent t$e 0N liitation on real estate $oldin%s under

t$e Jeneral GanDin% Act.

RTC %ranted t$e respondent9s otion to reie proceedin%s.

Petitioner ,led &or otion &or reconsideration !ut it was

denied !" t$e RTC. S$e eleated $er case to t$e CA ia a Rule

6 petition &or certiorari* assailin% t$e RTC orders.

T$e CA aHred t$e RTC9s orders.

;$en t$e CA denied $er otion &or reconsideration* t$e

petitioner ,led t$e present petition.

T$e petition is JRATE5. T$e assailed decision and resolution

o& t$e Court o& Appeals in CAJ.R. SP o. 107104 are

$ere!" RE?ERSE5 and SET ASI5E. Ciil Case o. )06=

!e&ore Granc$ 170 o& t$e Re%ional Trial Court o& =ala!on

=etro =anila is $ere!" 5IS=ISSE5.

ISS>E:

;$et$er or not t$e w$et$er t$e Court9s rulin% in J.R. o

1(7(( applies as stare decisis to t$e present case.

/EJA/ GASIS:

53CTRIE 3F STARE 5ECISIS* Kto ad$ere to precedents* and

not to unsettle t$in%s w$ic$ are esta!lis$ed.K >nder t$e

doctrine* w$en t$is Court $as once laid down a principle o& law

as applica!le to a certain state o& &acts* it will ad$ere to t$at

principle* and appl" it to all &uture cases* w$ere &acts are

su!stantiall" t$e sae re%ardless o& w$et$er t$e parties and

propert" are t$e sae. T$e doctrine o& stare decisis is !ased

upon t$e le%al principle or rule inoled and not upon t$e

ud%ent* w$ic$ results t$ere&ro. In t$is particular sense

stare decisis di8ers &ro res udicata* w$ic$ is !ased upon t$e

ud%ent.

R>/IJ:

;-EREF3RE* t$e petition is JRATE5. T$e assailed decision

and resolution o& t$e Court o& Appeals in CAJ.R. SP o

107104 are $ere!" RE?ERSE5 and SET ASI5E. Ciil Case o

)06= !e&ore Granc$ 170 o& t$e Re%ional Trial Court o

=ala!on* =etro =anila is $ere!" 5IS=ISSE5.

T$e 17 cases ,led !" t$e respondents $ae e#actl" t$e sae

point and t$e &acts are su!stantiall" t$e sae and accordin%to t$e Principle o& Stare 5ecisis once a case $as !een decided

one wa"* an" ot$er case inolin% e#actl" t$e sae point at

issue* as in t$e present case* s$ould !e decided in t$e sae

anner.

e" Rosario ?. (@uita"e Ins. An Casua"t7 Co., Inc.

;1963>

Lessons A88"ica"e A2iguous !rovisions Inter8rete

Against Insurer

FACTS:

April 1(* 1'7: Sieon del Rosario* &at$er o& t$e insured w$o

died &ro drownin% ,led a clai &or pa"ent wit$ E


6/23

6

ISS>E: ;M Sieon is entitled to recoer P(*000

-E/5: @ES.

ters in an insurance polic"* w$ic$ are a!i%uous* e


7/23

7

Fidelit" appraised t$e daa%e aountin% to (*000 w$en

it was accordin%l" in&ored o& t$e loss. 5espite deands*

Fidelit" re&used pa"ent under its polic"* t$us proptin%

?erendia to ,le a coplaint &or t$e recoer" o& (*000

Fidelit"* aerred t$at t$e polic" was aoided !" reason o&

oerinsurance* t$at ?erendia aliciousl" represented t$at t$e

!uildin% at t$e tie o& t$e ,re was leased under a contract

e#ecuted on une )* 1'0 to a certain Ro!erto Jarcia* w$enactuall" it was a =arcelo Jarcia w$o was t$e lessee.

Issue:

;$et$er or not ?erendia can clai on t$e insurance despite

t$e isrepresentation as to t$e lessee and t$e oerinsurance.

-eld:

3PE.

T$e contract o& lease upon w$ic$ ?erendia relies to support

$is clai &or insurance !ene,ts* was entered into !etween

$i and one Ro!ert Jarcia* a couple o& da"s a&ter t$e

e8ectiit" o& t$e insurance polic". ;$en t$e rented residential

!uildin% was ra+ed to t$e %round* it appears t$at Ro!ert

Jarcia was still wit$in t$e preises. -oweer* accordin% to

t$e inesti%ation !" t$e police* t$e !uildin% appeared to $ae

Kno occupantsK and t$at =r. Ro!erto Jarcia was Krentin% on

t$e ot$erside o& said copoundK T$ese pieces o& eidence

!elie ?erendiaLs uncorro!orated testion" t$at =arcelo Jarcia

w$o $e considered as t$e real lessee* was occup"in% t$e

!uildin% w$en it was !urned.

Ironicall"* durin% t$e trial* ?erendia aditted t$at it was not

Ro!ert Jarcia w$o si%ned t$e lease contract !ut it was

=arcelo Jarcia cousin o& Ro!ert* w$o $ad also !een pa"in%t$e rentals all t$e w$ile. ?erendia* $oweer* &ailed to e#plain

w$" =arcelo $ad to si%n $is cousinLs nae w$en $e in &act $e

was pa"in% &or t$e rent and w$" $e ?erendia2 $isel&* t$e

lessor* allowed suc$ a ruse. Fidelit"Ls conclusions on t$ese

proen &acts appear* t$ere&ore* to $ae suHcient !ases:

?erendia concocted t$e lease contract to deect responsi!ilit"

&or t$e ,re towards an alle%ed KlesseeK* inated t$e alue o&

t$e propert" !" t$e alle%ed ont$l" rental o& P6*002 w$en in

&act* t$e Proincial Assessor o& Ri+al $ad assessed t$e

propert"Ls &air arDet alue to !e onl" P40*(00.00* insured

t$e sae propert" wit$ two ot$er insurance copanies &or a

total coera%e o& around P'00*000* and created a deadend

&or t$e aduster !" t$e disappearance o& Ro!ert Jarcia.

Gasicall" a contract o& indenit"* an insurance contract is t$e

law !etween t$e parties. Its ters and conditions constitute

t$e easure o& t$e insurerLs lia!ilit" and copliance t$erewit$

is a condition precedent to t$e insuredLs ri%$t to recoer" &ro

t$e. As it is also a contract o& ad$esion* an insurance contract

s$ould !e li!erall" construed in &aor o& t$e insured and

strictl" a%ainst t$e insurer copan" w$ic$ usuall" prepares it.

Considerin%* $oweer* t$e &ore%oin% discussion pointin% to t$e

&act t$at ?erendia used a &alse lease contract to support $is

clai under Fire Insurance Polic"* t$e ters o& t$e polic"

s$ould !e strictl" construed a%ainst t$e insured. ?erendia

&ailed to lie !" t$e ters o& t$e polic"* speci,call" Section 1(

t$ereo& w$ic$ is e#pressed in ters t$at are clear and

una!i%uous* t$at all !ene,ts under t$e polic" s$all !e

&or&eited Kif the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any

false declaration be made or used in support thereof, or if any

fraudulent means or devises are used by the Insured or

anyone acting in his behalf to obtain any benet under the

policyK. ?erendia* $ain% presented a &alse declaration tosupport $is clai &or !ene,ts in t$e &or o& a &raudulent lease

contract* $e &or&eited all !ene,ts t$erein !" irtue o& Section

1( o& t$e polic" in t$e a!sence o& proo& t$at Fidelit" waied

suc$ proision

T$ere is also no reason to conclude t$at !" su!ittin% t$e

su!ro%ation receipt as eidence in court* Fidelit" !ound itsel&

to a Kutual a%reeentK to settle ?erendiaLs clais in

consideration o& t$e aount o& P14)*6.77. ;$ile t$e said

receipt appears to $ae !een a ,lledup &or o& Fidelit"* no

representatie o& Fidelit" $ad si%ned it. It is een incoplete

as t$e !lanD spaces &or a witness and $is address are not ,lled

up. =ore si%ni,cantl"* t$e sae receipt states t$at ?erendia

$ad receied t$e a&oresaid aount. -oweer* t$at ?erendia$ad not receied t$e aount stated t$erein* is proen !" t$e

&act t$at ?erendia $isel& ,led t$e coplaint &or t$e &ul

aount o& P(*000.00 stated in t$e polic". It i%$t !e t$at

t$ere $ad !een e8orts to settle ?erendiaLs clais* !ut surel"

t$e su!ro%ation receipt !" itsel& does not proe t$at a

settleent $ad !een arried at and en&orced. T$us* to

interpret Fidelit"Ls presentation o& t$e su!ro%ation receipt in

eidence as indicatie o& its accession to its KtersK is not

onl" wantin% in rational !asis !ut would !e su!stitutin% t$e

will o& t$e Court &or t$at o& t$e parties

!4ILI!!I$( A*(RICA$ LI'( I$%&RA$C( C)*!A$+ an

R)RIG) ( L)% R(+(% vs. 4)$. AR*A$) A$%AL),

in is ca8acit7 as Insurance Co22issioner, an RA*)$

*)$ILLA !A(R$), BR. G.R. $o. 65= Bu"7 =6, 199

Facts

Paterno wrote a letter o& coplaint to Ansaldo Insurance

Coissioner2 alle%in% pro!les encountered !" worDers and

pu!lic consuers as a result o& P$ilali&e9s practices. Ansaldo

sou%$t t$e coent o& 5e /os Re"es P$ilali&e President

w$o in turn sou%$t a !ill o& particulars. Paterno responded t$a

$is letter was suHcient in &or and sou%$t &or a $earin%

P$ilali&e countered t$at Paterno9s response did not ena!le

$i to answer t$e letter o& coplaint. T$erea&ter* a $earin% on

t$e coplaint $eard t$e alidit" o& t$e Contract o& A%enc"

CoA2 coplained o&* re


8/23

&urt$er proceedin%s. =eanw$ile* Paterno sou%$t &or t$e

resuption o& $earin% in re $is coplaint and a!out a ont$

later e#ecuted $is aHdait. P$ilali&e t$rou%$ =anuel

3rte%a* S?P


9/23


10/23

10

=. ;3 t$ere was concealent as to usti&" Jrepali&e9s non

pa"ent o& t$e insurance proceeds

4(L petition denied

1. ;I53;

To resole t$e issue* we ust consider t$e insura!le interest

in ort%a%ed properties and t$e parties to t$is t"pe o&contract.

T$e rationale o& a %roup insurance polic" o& ort%a%ors*

ot$erwise Dnown as t$e ort%a%e redeption insurance*B is

a deice &or t$e protection o& !ot$ t$e ort%a%ee and t$e

ort%a%or. 3n t$e part o& t$e ort%a%ee* it $as to enter into

suc$ &or o& contract so t$at in t$e eent o& t$e une#pected

deise o& t$e ort%a%or durin% t$e su!sistence o& t$e

ort%a%e contract* t$e proceeds &ro suc$ insurance will !e

applied to t$e pa"ent o& t$e ort%a%e de!t* t$ere!"

reliein% t$e $eirs o& t$e ort%a%or &ro pa"in% t$e

o!li%ation. In a siilar ein* aple protection is %ien to t$e

ort%a%or under suc$ a concept so t$at in t$e eent o& deat$

t$e ort%a%e o!li%ation will !e e#tin%uis$ed !" t$e

application o& t$e insurance proceeds to t$e ort%a%e

inde!tedness. Consenless t$e polic" proides* w$ere a ort%a%or o& propert"

e8ects insurance in $is own nae proidin% t$at t$e loss s$all

!e pa"a!le to t$e ort%a%ee* or assi%ns a polic" o& insuranceto a ort%a%ee* t$e insurance is deeed to !e upon t$e

interest o& t$e ort%a%or* w$o does not cease to !e a part" to

t$e ori%inal contract* and an" act o& $is* prior to t$e loss*

w$ic$ would ot$erwise aoid t$e insurance* will $ae t$e

sae e8ect* alt$ou%$ t$e propert" is in t$e $ands o& t$e

ort%a%ee* !ut an" act w$ic$* under t$e contract o&

insurance* is to !e per&ored !" t$e ort%a%or* a" !e

per&ored !" t$e ort%a%ee t$erein naed* wit$ t$e sae

e8ect as i& it $ad !een per&ored !" t$e ort%a%or.

t$e ort%a%ee is sipl" an appointee o& t$e insurance &und*

suc$ losspa"a!le clause does not aDe t$e ort%a%ee a

part" to t$e contract.

Sec. o& t$e Insurance Code proides:

>nless t$e polic" proides* w$ere a ort%a%or o& propert"

e8ects insurance in $is own nae proidin% t$at t$e loss s$all

!e pa"a!le to t$e ort%a%ee* or assi%ns a polic" o& insurance

to a ort%a%ee* t$e insurance is deeed to !e upon t$e

interest o& t$e ort%a%or* w$o does not cease to !e a part" to

t$e ori%inal contract* and an" act o& $is* prior to t$e loss*

w$ic$ would ot$erwise aoid t$e insurance* will $ae t$e

sae e8ect* alt$ou%$ t$e propert" is in t$e $ands o& t$e

ort%a%ee* !ut an" act w$ic$* under t$e contract o&

insurance* is to !e per&ored !" t$e ort%a%or* a" !e

per&ored !" t$e ort%a%ee t$erein naed* wit$ t$e sae

e8ect as i& it $ad !een per&ored !" t$e ort%a%or.

T$e insured priate respondent did not cede to t$e ort%a%ee

all $is ri%$ts or interests in t$e insurance* t$e polic" statin%

t$at: In t$e eent o& t$e de!tor9s deat$ !e&ore $is

inde!tedness wit$ t$e Creditor 5GP s$all $ae !een &ull"

paid* an aount to pa" t$e outstandin% inde!tedness s$al

,rst !e paid to t$e creditor and t$e !alance o& su assured* i&t$ere is an"* s$all t$en !e paid to t$e !ene,ciar"Mies

desi%nated !" t$e de!tor.B ;$en 5GP su!itted t$e

insurance clai a%ainst petitioner* t$e latter denied pa"ent

t$ereo&* interposin% t$e de&ense o& concealent coitted !"

t$e insured. T$erea&ter* 5GP collected t$e de!t &ro t$e

ort%a%or and tooD t$e necessar" action o& &oreclosure on t$e

residential lot o& priate respondent.

And since a polic" o& insurance upon li&e or $ealt$ a" pass

!" trans&er* will or succession to an" person* w$et$er $e $as

an insura!le interest or not* and suc$ person a" recoer it

w$ateer t$e insured i%$t $ae recoered* 1t$e widow o

t$e decedent 5r. /euterio a" ,le t$e suit a%ainst t$e insurer

Jrepali&e.

). T$e second assi%ned error re&ers to an alle%ed concealent

t$at t$e petitioner interposed as its de&ense to annul t$e

insurance contract. Petitioner contends t$at 5r. /euterio &ailed

to disclose t$at $e $ad $"pertension* w$ic$ i%$t $ae

caused $is deat$. Concealent e#ists w$ere t$e assured $ad

Dnowled%e o& a &act aterial to t$e risD* and $onest"* %ood

&ait$* and &air dealin% re


11/23

11

speci,c per&orance s$ould !e disissed. Petitioner9s clai is

wit$out erit. A li&e insurance polic" is a alued polic". >nless

t$e interest o& a person insured is suscepti!le o& e#act

pecuniar" easureent* t$e easure o& indenit" under a

polic" o& insurance upon li&e or $ealt$ is t$e su ,#ed in t$e

polic". T$e ort%a%or paid t$e preiu accordin% to t$e

coera%e o& $is insurance w$ic$ states t$at:

T$e polic" states t$at upon receipt o& due proo& o& t$e5e!tor9s deat$ durin% t$e ters o& t$is insurance* a deat$

!ene,t in t$e aount o& P6*)00.00 s$all !e paid.

In t$e eent o& t$e de!tor9s deat$ !e&ore $is inde!tedness

wit$ t$e creditor s$all $ae !een &ull" paid* an aount to pa"

t$e outstandin% inde!tedness s$all ,rst !e paid to t$e

Creditor and t$e !alance o& t$e Su Assured* i& t$ere is an"

s$all t$en !e paid to t$e !ene,ciar"Mies desi%nated !" t$e

de!tor.B

-oweer* we noted t$at t$e CA decision was proul%ated in

1''(. In priate respondent9s eorandu* s$e states t$at

5GP &oreclosed in 1'' t$eir residential lot* in satis&action o&

ort%a%or9s outstandin% loan. Considerin% t$is superenin%

eent* t$e insurance proceeds s$all inure to t$e !ene,t o& t$e

$eirs o& t$e deceased person or $is !ene,ciaries. Ender t$e Insurance Act* t$e easure o& insura!le interest in

t$e propert" is t$e e#tent to w$ic$ t$e insured i%$t !e

daini,ed !" t$e loss or inur" t$ereo&. Also it is proided in

t$e IA t$at t$e insurance s$all !e applied e#clusiel" to t$e

proper interest o& t$e person in w$ose nae it is ade.

>ndou!tedl"* S=G as t$e ort%a%ee o& t$e propert"* $ad an

insura!le interest t$erein !ut it could 3T* an an" eent*

recoer upon t$e two policies an aount in e#cess o& its

ort%a%e credit.

G" irtue o& t$e Insurance Act* neit$er 5unn nor -ardin% could

$ae recoered &ro t$e two policies. ;it$ respect to

-ardin%* w$en $e ac


12/23


13/23

1(

At t$e sae date* ?icente 3n% /i Sin%* r. /i2 an e#ecuted

an Indiidual Juarant" A%reeent wit$ FEG to %uarantee t$e

propt and &ait$&ul per&orance o& t$e ters and conditions

o& t$e lease a%reeent

?/ de&aulted in t$e pa"ent o& t$e ont$l" rentals resultin%

to arrears o& P(*414*46.7 and re&used to pa" despite

deands

FEG ,led a coplaint &or daa%es and replein a%ainst ?/*

/i and o$n 5oe

?/ and /i aditted t$e e#istence o& t$e lease a%reeent

!ut asserted t$at it is in realit" a sale o& e


14/23

14

Ciil Code states: T$e contract o& insurance is %oerned !"

special laws. =atters not e#pressl" proided &or in suc$

special laws s$all !e re%ulated !" t$is Code.B ;$en not

ot$erwise speci,call" proided &or !" t$e Insurance /aw* t$e

contract o& li&e insurance is %oerned !" t$e %eneral rules o&

t$e ciil law re%ulatin% contracts. And under Article )01) o&

t$e sae Code* an" person w$o is &or!idden &ro receiin%

an" donation under Article 7(' cannot !e naed !ene,ciar"

o& a ,&e insurance polic" !" t$e person w$o cannot aDe adonation to $i. Coonlaw spouses are* de,nitel"* !arred

&ro receiin% donations &ro eac$ ot$er. Also coniction &or

adulter" or concu!ina%e is not reFACTS:

Roan A. Concepcion listed as $is !ene,ciaries AE: ;M A


15/23

1

propert" ri%$ts and not erel" ana%eent or adinistration

!ecause t$e" inole t$e incurrin% or terination o&

contractual o!li%ations.

>nder t$e laws CC and rules o& Court2 T$e &at$er is

constituted as t$e inor9s le%al adinistrator o& t$e propt"*

and w$en t$e propt" o& t$e c$ild is wort$ ore t$an P)T as in

t$e case at !ar* t$e inor9s propt" was wort$ )*00 $is W

s$are as !ene,ciar"2* t$e &at$er a ust ,le a petition &or%uardians$ip and post a %uardians$ip !ond. In t$e case at

!ar* t$e &at$er did not ,le an" petition &or %uardians$ip nor

post a %uardians$ip !ond* and as suc$ cannot possi!l"

e#ercise t$e powers ested on $i as le%al adinistrator o&

t$e inor9s propert". T$e consent %ie &or and in !e$al& o& t$e

son wit$out prior court aut$ori+ation to t$e loan application

and t$e surrender was insu-cient and ine.ectiveand

P-I/A=/IFE was usti,ed in disapproin% t$e said applications.

Assuin% t$at t$e propt" o& t$e ward was less t$an )T* t$e

e8ect would !e t$e sae* since t$e parents would onl" !e

e#epted &ro ,lin% a !ond and udicial aut$ori+ation* !ut

t$eir acts as le%al adinistrators are onl" liited to acts o&

ana%eent or adinistration and not to acts o&encu!rance or disposition.

!i"a2 v !inea G.R. $o. L-5=16 Bu"7 19, 19


16/23

16

A case was ,led in CFI !" /ope+. T$e court awarded $i

t$e su o& P*4').)1 wit$ le%al interest.

Issue:

;$et$er or not 5el Rosario acted as t$e a%ent o& /ope+ in

taDin% out t$e insurance on t$e contents o& t$e ware$ouse or

w$et$er s$e acted as t$e reinsurer o& t$e copra.

-eld:

S$e acted as t$e a%ent o& /ope+.

T$e a%enc" can !e deduced &ro t$e ware$ouse receipts* t$e

insurance policies and t$e circustances surroundin% t$e

transaction. >nder an" aspect* 5el Rosario is lia!le. T$e law

is t$at a polic" e8ected !" a !ailee and coerin% !" its ters

in $is own propert" and propert" $eld in trust* inures* in t$e

eent o& loss* e

FACTS:

In t$e contract o& ort%a%e* t$e owner P.5. 5unn $ad a%reed*

at $is own e#pense* to insure t$e ort%a%ed propert" &or its

&ull alue and to indorse t$e policies in suc$ anner as to

aut$ori+e t$e Grewer" Copan" to receie t$e proceeds in

case o& loss and to retain suc$ part t$ereo& as i%$t !e

necessar" to satis&" t$e reainder t$en due upon t$e

ort%a%e de!t. Instead* $oweer* o& e8ectin% t$e insurance

$isel& 5unn aut$ori+ed and re


17/23

17

Petitioner tooD out a polic" o& ,re insurance oer t$e

erc$andise inside t$e leased preises wit$ >nited Insurance

wit$out consent o& CXS.

3n t$e da" t$e lease contract was to e#pire a ,re !roDe out

inside t$e leased preises. CXS* wrote a letter to >nited

asDin% t$at t$e proceeds o& t$e ,re insurance !e paid directl"

to CXS. >nited re&used. -ence* t$e latter ,led a coplaint

a%ainst t$e C$a spouses and >nited.

RTC ruled in &aor o& CXS. CA aHred* $ence t$e petition.

Issue: ;$et$er or not CXS can recoer &ro t$e insurance

polic".

-eld: o. Section 1 o& t$e Insurance Code proides t$at: o

contract or polic" o& insurance on propert" s$all !e

en&orcea!le e#cept &or t$e !ene,t o& soe person $ain% an

insura!le interest in t$e propert" insured.B

In t$e present case* it cannot !e denied t$at CXS $as no

insura!le interest in t$e %oods and erc$andise inside t$e

leased preises under t$e proisions o& Section 17 o& t$e

Insurance Code: T$e easure o& an insura!le interest in

propert" is t$e e#tent to w$ic$ t$e insured i%$t !e

dani,ed !" loss or inur" t$ereo&.B T$ere&ore* CXS cannot !e

alidl" a !ene,ciar" o& t$e ,re insurance polic" taDen !"

petitionerspouses. T$e insura!le interest reains wit$ t$e

C$a spouses.

T$e stipulation in t$e lease contract is oid &or !ein% contrar"

to law and pu!lic polic". T$is is in Deepin% wit$ t$e proision

under Sec. ) o& t$e Insurance Code t$at: Eer" stipulation in

a polic" o& Insurance &or t$e pa"ent o& loss* w$et$er t$e

person insured $as or $as not an" interest in t$e propert"

insured or t$at t$e polic" s$all !e receied as proo& o& suc$

interest and eer" polic" e#ecuted !" wa" o& %ain% or

wa%erin% is oid.B

Tai ong v Insurance G.R. $o. L-5539 'eruar7 =9,

19


18/23


19/23

1'

particularl" o& t$e !reast* oaries* uterus and enstrual

disorders.

T$e application also recited t$at t$e declarations o&

Saturnino constituted a &urt$er !asis &or t$e issuance o& t$e

polic".

Issue:

;$et$er or not t$e insured ade suc$ &alse representation o&

aterial &acts as to aoid t$e polic".

-eld:

@ES.

T$ere can !e no dispute t$at t$e in&oration %ien !" $er in

t$e application &or insurance was &alse* nael"* t$at s$e

neer $ad cancer or tuors or consulted an" p$"sician or

under%one an" operation wit$in t$e precedin% period o&

"ears.

T$e


20/23

)0

All t$e essential data re%ardin% -elen was supplied !" %o

to /apu/apu =ondra%on* t$e !ranc$ ana%er o& Jrepali&e

Ce!u. =ondra%on t$en t"ped t$e data on t$e application &or

w$ic$ was later si%ned !" %o.

%o t$en paid t$e insurance preiu and a !indin%

deposit receipt was issued to $i. T$e !indin% receipt

contained t$e &ollowin% proision: 0If the applicant shall not

have been insurable 111 and the Company declines toapprove the application, the insurance applied for shall not

have been in force at any time and the sum paid shall be

returned to the applicant upon the surrender of this receipt/

=ondra%on wrote on t$e !otto o& t$e application &or $is

stron% recoendation &or t$e approal o& t$e insurance

application.

3n Apr (0* 1'7* =ondra%on receied a letter &ro

Jrepali&e =ain oHce disapproin% t$e insurance application o&

%o &or t$e siple reason t$at t$e )0"r endowent plan is

not aaila!le &or inors !elow 7 "rs old.

=ondra%on wrote !acD t$e ain oHce a%ain stron%l"

recoendin% t$e approal o& t$e endowent plan on t$e

li&e o& -elen* addin% t$at Jrepali&e was t$e onl" insurance

copan" 3T sellin% endowent plans to c$ildren.

3n a" 1'7* -elen died o& inuen+a wit$ coplication o&

!ronc$o pneuonia. %o ,led a clai wit$ Jepali&e* !ut t$e

latter denied lia!ilit" on t$e %round t$at t$ere was no contract

!etween t$e insurer and t$e insured and a !indin% receipt is

3T eidence o& suc$ contract.

Issue:

;$et$er or not t$e !indin% deposit receipt* constituted a

teporar" contract o& li&e insurance.

-eld:

3.

T$e !indin% receipt in

Facts:

Canilan% consulted 5r. Claudio and was dia%nosed as

su8erin% &ro Ksinus tac$"cardia.K =r. Canilan% consulted t$e

sae doctor a%ain on ( Au%ust 1') and t$is tie was &ound

to $ae Kacute !ronc$itis.K

3n t$e ne#t da"* 4 Au%ust 1')* Canilan% applied &or a

KnonedicalK insurance polic" wit$ Jrepali&e nain% $is wi&e

as $is !ene,ciar". Canilan% was issued ordinar" li&e insurance

wit$ t$e &ace alue o& P1'*700.

3n Au%ust 1'(* Canilan% died o& Kcon%estie $ear

&ailure*K Kaneia*K and Kc$ronic aneia.K T$e wi&e as

!ene,ciar"* ,led a clai wit$ Jrepali&e w$ic$ t$e insure

denied on t$e %round t$at t$e insured $ad concealed ateria

in&oration &ro it.

?da Canilan% ,led a coplaint wit$ t$e Insurance

Coissioner a%ainst Jrepali&e contendin% t$at as &ar as s$e

Dnows $er $us!and was not su8erin% &ro an" disorder and

t$at $e died o& Didne" disorder.

Jrepali&e was ordered to pa" t$e widow !" t$e Insurance

Coissioner $oldin% t$at t$ere was no intentiona

concealent on t$e Part o& Canilan% and t$at Jrepali&e $ad

waied its ri%$t to in


21/23

)1

aterialit" depend upon t$e actual or p$"sical eents w$ic$

ensue. =aterialit" relates rat$er to t$e Kpro!a!le and

reasona!le inuence o& t$e &actsK upon t$e part" to w$o t$e

counication s$ould $ae !een ade* in assessin% t$e risD

inoled in aDin% or oittin% to aDe &urt$er in


22/23

))

Anent t$e ,ndin% t$at t$e &acts concealed $ad no !earin% to

t$e cause o& deat$ o& t$e insured* it is well settled t$at t$e

insured need not die o& t$e disease $e $ad &ailed to disclose to

t$e insurer. It is suHcient t$at $is nondisclosure isled t$e

insurer in &orin% $is estiates o& t$e risDs o& t$e proposed

insurance polic" or in aDin% in


23/23

)(

Fraudulent intent on t$e part o& t$e insured ust !e

esta!lis$ed to entitle t$e insurer to rescind t$e contract. And

as correctl" o!sered !" t$e lower court* Kisrepresentation

as a de&ense o& t$e insurer to aoid lia!ilit" is an LaHratieL

de&ense. T$e dut" to esta!lis$ suc$ a de&ense !" satis&actor"

and conincin% eidence rests upon t$e de&endant. T$e

eidence !e&ore t$e Court does not clearl" and satis&actoril"

esta!lis$ t$at de&ense.K

It !ears ep$asis t$at Xwon% a $ad in&ored t$e

appellantLs edical e#ainer o& t$e tuor. -is stateent t$at

said tuor was Kassociated wit$ ulcer o& t$e stoac$K s$ould

!e construed as an e#pression ade in %ood &ait$ o& $is !elie&

as to t$e nature o& $is ailent and operation.

;$ile t$e in&oration counicated was iper&ect* t$e sae

was suHcient to $ae induced appellant to aDe &urt$er

in

Date post:	21-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rowela-descallar
View:	228 times
Download:	0 times

prelim digest.docx

Documents