UCPB vs.

MASAGANA
Facts: Insurer issued 5 fire insurance policies covering various properties of the Insured (covering the period May 22, 1991-May 22, 1992). Before
the expiration of the policy (March 1992), Insurer evaluated the policy and decided not to renew them. Thus, Insurer issued a notice of non-
renewal to Insureds broker Zuellig (on April 1992). After the expiration of the policy (or on June 13, 2012), fire razed Insureds property covered
by 3 policies. A month later, Insured presented 5 checks to the Insurers cashier as payment for the renewal of the policy (from May 1192-May
1993), however, no notice of loss was ever filed by Insured. Insurer refused to pay on the ground that the policies had already expired and were
not renewed, and that the fire occurred before payment of the premium (for renewal).
RTC: Insured fully complied with its duty to pay premium.
CA: following previous practice, Insured was allowed a 60-90 day credit term for the renewal of its policy, and that the acceptance of the late
premium payment suggested an understanding that payment could be made later, and that no timely notice of non-renewal was sent.
Issue: Whether the fire insurance policies issued by Insurer to Insured had expired on May 1992 or had been extended or renewed by an implied
credit arrangement (even though actual tender of payment was made after the occurrence of the fire).
Held: No, the insurance policies had not been renewed.
An insurance policy, other than life, issued originally or on renewal, is not valid and binding until actual payment of the premium. Any agreement
to the contrary is void.
The parties may not agree expressly or impliedly on the extension of creditor time to pay the premium and consider the policy binding before
actual payment.
Here, the payment of the premium for renewal of the policies was tendered on July 13, 1992, a month after the fire occurred on June 13, 1992.
The assured did not even give the insurer a notice of loss within a reasonable time after occurrence of the fire.

FIELDMANS INSURANCE V. SONGCO - DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS IN INSURANCE
25 SCRA 70
Facts:
> In 1960, Sambat, an agent of Fieldmans Insurance, induced Songco, a man of scant education to enter into a common carrier insurance
contract with Fieldman.
> During the inducement, a son of Songco butted in and said that they could not accept the type of insurance offered because theirs was an
owner-type jeepney and not a common carrier.
> Sambat answered that it did not matter because the insurance company was not owned by the government and therefore had nothing to do
with rules and regulations of the latter (Fieldman).
> The insurance was executed and approved for a year from Sept. 1960-1961. It was renewed in 1961 for another year.
> In Oct. 1961, the jeepney collided with a car in Bulacan and as a result, Sonco died. The remaining members of the family claimed the
proceeds of the insurance with the company but it refused to pay on the ground that the vehicle was not a common carrier.

Issue:

Whether or not the Songcos can claim the insurance proceeds despite the fact that the vehicle concerned was an owner and not a common
carrier.

Held:
Yes.
The company is estopped from asserting that the vehicle was not covered. After it had led Federico Songco to believe that he could qualify
under the common carrier liability insurance policy, and to enter into a contract of insurance paying the premiums due, it could not thereafter be
permitted to change its stand to the detriment of the heirs of the insured. It knew all along that Frederico owned a private vehicle. Its agent
Sambat twice exerted the utmost pressure on the insured, a man of scant education, and the company did not object to this.


DEL ROSARIO V. EQUITABLE INSURANCE - LIFE INSURANCE POLICY
118 PHIL 349
Facts:
> Equitable Insurance issued a life Insurance policy to del Rosario binding itself to pay P1,000 to P3,000 as indemnity.
> Del Rosario died in a boating accident. The heirs filed a claim and Equitable paid them P1,000.
> The heir filed a complaint for recovery of the balance of P2,000, claiming that the insurere should pay him P3,000 as stated in the policy.

Issue:
Whether or not the heir is entitled to recover P3,000.

Held:
YES.
Generally accepted principles or ruling on insurance, enunciate that where there is an ambiguity with respect to the terms and conditions of the
policy, the same shall be resolved against the one responsible thereof. The insured has little, if any, participation in the preparation of the policy.
The interpretation of obscure stipulations in a contract should not favor the party who cause the obscurity.

Landicho vs gsis

Facts:
On June 1, 1964, the GSIS issued in favor of Flaviano Landicho, a civil engineer of the Bureau of Public Works, stationed at Mamburao, Mindoro
Occidental, optional additional life insurance policy No. OG-136107 in the sum of P7,900. The policy states on its face:
This insurance is granted subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth and in consideration of the "Information"
therefor and of the payment on the day this Policy takes effect of the monthly premiums stated above, due from and payable
by the Insured, and the like payments on the last day of every month during the lifetime of the Insured until maturity of this
Policy or until prior death of the Insured.
While still under the employment of the Bureau of Public Works, Mr. Landicho met his death, on June 29, 1966, in an airplane
crash in Mindoro. Thereupon, Mrs. Landicho, in her own behalf and that of her co-plaintiffs and minor children, Rafael J. and
Maria Lourdes Eugenia, filed with the GSIS a claim for P15,800, as the double indemnity due under policy No. OG-136107,
because of the untimely death of the insured owing to said accident. The GSIS denied the claim, upon the ground that the
policy had never been in force because, pursuant to subdivision (e) of the above-quoted paragraph 7 of the application, the
policy "shall be ... effective on the first day of the month next following the month the first premium is paid," and no premium
had ever been paid on said policy. Upon refusal of the GSIS to reconsider its stand, this action was filed, September 22, 1967, in
the Court of First Instance of Manila, in which the GSIS reiterated its aforementioned defense. Thereafter submitted by both
parties for judgment on the pleadings, upon the ground thatthe case involve purely questions of law, said court rendered, in
due course, its abovementioned decision, from which the GSIS has taken the present appeal.

Issue:
whether or not the insurance policy in question has ever been in force, not a single premium having been paid thereon.
Held:
This is particularly true as regards insurance policies, in respect of which it is settled that the " "terms in an insurance policy, which are ambiguous,
equivocal, or uncertain ... are to be construed strictly and most strongly against the insurer, and liberally in favor of the insured so as to effect the
dominant purpose of indemnity or payment to the insured, especially where a forfeiture is involved" (29 Am. Jur., 181), and the reason for this rule
is the "insured usually has no voice in the selection or arrangement of the words employed and that the language of the contract is selected with
great care and deliberation by experts and legal advisers employed by, and acting exclusively in the interest of, the insurance company." he
equitable and ethical considerations justifying the foregoing view are bolstered up by two (2) factors, namely:
(a) The aforementioned subdivision (c) states "that this application serves as a letter of authority to the Collecting Officer of our Office" the
Bureau of Public Works "thru the GSIS to deduct from my salary the monthly premium in the amount of P33.36." No such deduction was made
and, consequently, not even the first premium "paid" because the collecting officer of the Bureau of Public Works was not advised by the GSIS
to make it (the deduction) pursuant to said authority. Surely, this omission of the GSIS should not inure to its benefit. .
(b) The GSIS had impliedly induced the insured to believe that Policy No. OG-136107 was in force, he having been paid by the GSIS the dividends
corresponding to said policy. Had the insured had the slightest inkling that the latter was not, as yet, effective for non-payment of the first
premium, he would have, in all probability, caused the same to be forthwith satisfied.