Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 147839 June 8, 2006
GAISANO CAGAYAN, INC. Petitioner,
vs.
INSURANCE COMPANY O NORT! AMERICA, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
AUSTRIA"MARTINE#, J.:
"efore the !ourt is a petition for revie# on certiorari of the Decision
$
dated
October $$, %&&& of the !ourt of 'ppeals (!') in !'*+.R. !V No. ,$-.-
#hich set aside the Decision dated 'u/ust 0$, $11- of the Re/ional Trial
!ourt, "ranch $0-, Ma2ati (RT!) in !ivil !ase No. 1%*0%% and upheld the
causes of action for da3a/es of Insurance !o3pan4 of North '3erica
(respondent) a/ainst +aisano !a/a4an, Inc. (petitioner)5 and the !'
Resolution dated 'pril $$, %&&$ #hich denied petitioner6s 3otion for
reconsideration.
The factual bac2/round of the case is as follo#s7
Intercapitol Mar2etin/ !orporation (IM!) is the 3a2er of 8ran/ler "lue
9eans. :evi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. (:SPI) is the local distributor of products
bearin/ trade3ar2s o#ned b4 :evi Strauss ; !o.. IM! and :SPI separatel4
obtained fro3 respondent <re insurance policies #ith boo2 debt
endorse3ents. The insurance policies provide for covera/e on =boo2 debts
in connection #ith read4*3ade clothin/ 3aterials #hich have been sold or
delivered to various custo3ers and dealers of the Insured an4#here in the
Philippines.=
%
The policies de<ned boo2 debts as the =unpaid account still
appearin/ in the "oo2 of 'ccount of the Insured .> da4s after the ti3e of
the loss covered under this Polic4.=
0
The policies also provide for the
follo#in/ conditions7
$. 8arranted that the !o3pan4 shall not be liable for an4 unpaid
account in respect of the 3erchandise sold and delivered b4 the
Insured #hich are outstandin/ at the date of loss for a period in
e?cess of si? (,) 3onths fro3 the date of the coverin/ invoice or
actual deliver4 of the 3erchandise #hichever shall <rst occur.
%. 8arranted that the Insured shall sub3it to the !o3pan4 #ithin
t#elve ($%) da4s after the close of ever4 calendar 3onth all
a3ount sho#n in their boo2s of accounts as unpaid and thus
beco3e receivable ite3 fro3 their custo3ers and dealers. ? ? ?
.
? ? ? ?
Petitioner is a custo3er and dealer of the products of IM! and :SPI. On
Februar4 %>, $11$, the +aisano Superstore !o3ple? in !a/a4an de Oro
!it4, o#ned b4 petitioner, #as consu3ed b4 <re. Included in the ite3s lost
or destro4ed in the <re #ere stoc2s of read4*3ade clothin/ 3aterials sold
and delivered b4 IM! and :SPI.
On Februar4 ., $11%, respondent <led a co3plaint for da3a/es a/ainst
petitioner. It alle/es that IM! and :SPI <led #ith respondent their clai3s
under their respective <re insurance policies #ith boo2 debt endorse3ents5
that as of Februar4 %>, $11$, the unpaid accounts of petitioner on the sale
and deliver4 of read4*3ade clothin/ 3aterials #ith IM! #as P%,$$1,%&>.&&
#hile #ith :SPI it #as P>0>,,$0.&&5 that respondent paid the clai3s of IM!
and :SPI and, b4 virtue thereof, respondent #as subro/ated to their ri/hts
a/ainst petitioner5 that respondent 3ade several de3ands for pa43ent
upon petitioner but these #ent unheeded.
>
In its 'ns#er #ith !ounter !lai3 dated 9ul4 ., $11>, petitioner contends
that it could not be held liable because the propert4 covered b4 the
insurance policies #ere destro4ed due to fortuities event or force 3a@eure5
that respondent6s ri/ht of subro/ation has no basis inas3uch as there #as
no breach of contract co33itted b4 it since the loss #as due to <re #hich
it could not prevent or foresee5 that IM! and :SPI never co33unicated to it
that the4 insured their properties5 that it never consented to pa4in/ the
clai3 of the insured.
,
't the pre*trial conference the parties failed to arrive at an a3icable
settle3ent.
A
Thus, trial on the 3erits ensued.
On 'u/ust 0$, $11-, the RT! rendered its decision dis3issin/ respondent6s
co3plaint.
-
It held that the <re #as purel4 accidental5 that the cause of the
<re #as not attributable to the ne/li/ence of the petitioner5 that it has not
been established that petitioner is the debtor of IM! and :SPI5 that since
the sales invoices state that =it is further a/reed that 3erel4 for purpose of
securin/ the pa43ent of purchase price, the above*described 3erchandise
re3ains the propert4 of the vendor until the purchase price is full4 paid=,
IM! and :SPI retained o#nership of the delivered /oods and 3ust bear the
loss.
Dissatis<ed, petitioner appealed to the !'.
1
On October $$, %&&&, the !'
rendered its decision settin/ aside the decision of the RT!. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads7
8BRFOR, in vie# of the fore/oin/, the appealed decision is RVRSD
and ST 'SID and a ne# one is entered orderin/ defendant*appellee
+aisano !a/a4an, Inc. to pa47
$. the a3ount of P%,$$1,%&>.,& representin/ the a3ount paid b4
the plaintiC*appellant to the insured Inter !apitol Mar2etin/
!orporation, plus le/al interest fro3 the ti3e of de3and until full4
paid5
%. the a3ount of P>0>,,$0.&& representin/ the a3ount paid b4 the
plaintiC*appellant to the insured :evi Strauss Phil., Inc., plus le/al
interest fro3 the ti3e of de3and until full4 paid.
8ith costs a/ainst the defendant*appellee.
SO ORDRD.
$&
The !' held that the sales invoices are proofs of sale, bein/ detailed
state3ents of the nature, Duantit4 and cost of the thin/ sold5 that loss of
the /oods in the <re 3ust be borne b4 petitioner since
the proviso contained in the sales invoices is an e?ception under 'rticle
$>&. ($) of the !ivil !ode, to the /eneral rule that if the thin/ is lost b4 a
fortuitous event, the ris2 is borne b4 the o#ner of the thin/ at the ti3e the
loss under the principle of res perit do3ino5 that petitioner6s obli/ation to
IM! and :SPI is not the deliver4 of the lost /oods but the pa43ent of its
unpaid account and as such the obli/ation to pa4 is not e?tin/uished, even
if the <re is considered a fortuitous event5 that b4 subro/ation, the insurer
has the ri/ht to /o a/ainst petitioner5 that, bein/ a <re insurance #ith boo2
debt endorse3ents, #hat #as insured #as the vendor6s interest as a
creditor.
$$
Petitioner <led a 3otion for reconsideration
$%
but it #as denied b4 the !' in
its Resolution dated 'pril $$, %&&$.
$0
Bence, the present petition for revie# on certiorari anchored on the
follo#in/ 'ssi/n3ent of rrors7
TB !OERT OF 'PP':S RRD IN BO:DIN+ TB'T TB INSER'N! IN TB
INST'NT !'S 8'S ON OVR !RDIT.
TB !OERT OF 'PP':S RRD IN BO:DIN+ TB'T ':: RISF OVR TB
SE"9!T +OODS IN TB INST'NT !'S B'D TR'NSFRRD TO PTITIONR
EPON D:IVRG TBROF.
TB !OERT OF 'PP':S RRD IN BO:DIN+ TB'T TBR 8'S 'ETOM'TI!
SE"RO+'TION ENDR 'RT. %%&A OF TB !IVI: !OD IN F'VOR OF
RSPONDNT.
$.
'nent the <rst error, petitioner contends that the insurance in the present
case cannot be dee3ed to be over credit since an insurance =on credit=
belies not onl4 the nature of <re insurance but the e?press ter3s of the
policies5 that it #as not credit that #as insured since respondent paid on
the occasion of the loss of the insured /oods to <re and not because of the
non*pa43ent b4 petitioner of an4 obli/ation5 that, even if the insurance is
dee3ed as one over credit, there #as no loss as the accounts #ere not 4et
due since no prior de3ands #ere 3ade b4 IM! and :SPI a/ainst petitioner
for pa43ent of the debt and such de3ands ca3e fro3 respondent onl4
after it had alread4 paid IM! and :SPI under the <re insurance policies.
$>
's to the second error, petitioner avers that despite deliver4 of the /oods,
petitioner*bu4er IM! and :SPI assu3ed the ris2 of loss #hen the4 secured
<re insurance policies over the /oods.
!oncernin/ the third /round, petitioner sub3its that there is no
subro/ation in favor of respondent as no valid insurance could be
3aintained thereon b4 IM! and :SPI since all ris2 had transferred to
petitioner upon deliver4 of the /oods5 that petitioner #as not priv4 to the
insurance contract or the pa43ent bet#een respondent and its insured nor
#as its consent or approval ever secured5 that this lac2 of privit4 forecloses
an4 real interest on the part of respondent in the obli/ation to pa4, li3itin/
its interest to 2eepin/ the insured /oods safe fro3 <re.
For its part, respondent counters that #hile o#nership over the read4*
3ade clothin/ 3aterials #as transferred upon deliver4 to petitioner, IM!
and :SPI have insurable interest over said /oods as creditors #ho stand to
suCer direct pecuniar4 loss fro3 its destruction b4 <re5 that petitioner is
liable for loss of the read4*3ade clothin/ 3aterials since it failed to
overco3e the presu3ption of liabilit4 under 'rticle $%,>
$,
of the !ivil
!ode5 that the <re #as caused throu/h petitioner6s ne/li/ence in failin/ to
provide strin/ent 3easures of caution, care and 3aintenance on its
propert4 because electric #ires do not usuall4 short circuit unless there are
defects in their installation or #hen there is lac2 of proper 3aintenance
and supervision of the propert45 that petitioner is /uilt4 of /ross and
evident bad faith in refusin/ to pa4 respondent6s valid clai3 and should be
liable to respondent for contracted la#4er6s fees, liti/ation e?penses and
cost of suit.
$A
's a /eneral rule, in petitions for revie#, the @urisdiction of this !ourt in
cases brou/ht before it fro3 the !' is li3ited to revie#in/ Duestions of la#
#hich involves no e?a3ination of the probative value of the evidence
presented b4 the liti/ants or an4 of the3.
$-
The Supre3e !ourt is not a
trier of facts5 it is not its function to anal4He or #ei/h evidence all over
a/ain.
$1
'ccordin/l4, <ndin/s of fact of the appellate court are /enerall4
conclusive on the Supre3e !ourt.
%&
Nevertheless, @urisprudence has reco/niHed several e?ceptions in #hich
factual issues 3a4 be resolved b4 this !ourt, such as7 ($) #hen the <ndin/s
are /rounded entirel4 on speculation, sur3ises or con@ectures5 (%) #hen
the inference 3ade is 3anifestl4 3ista2en, absurd or i3possible5 (0) #hen
there is /rave abuse of discretion5 (.) #hen the @ud/3ent is based on a
3isapprehension of facts5 (>) #hen the <ndin/s of facts are conIictin/5 (,)
#hen in 3a2in/ its <ndin/s the !' #ent be4ond the issues of the case, or
its <ndin/s are contrar4 to the ad3issions of both the appellant and the
appellee5 (A) #hen the <ndin/s are contrar4 to the trial court5 (-) #hen the
<ndin/s are conclusions #ithout citation of speci<c evidence on #hich the4
are based5 (1) #hen the facts set forth in the petition as #ell as in the
petitioner6s 3ain and repl4 briefs are not disputed b4 the respondent5 ($&)
#hen the <ndin/s of fact are pre3ised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted b4 the evidence on record5 and ($$) #hen the
!' 3anifestl4 overloo2ed certain relevant facts not disputed b4 the
parties, #hich, if properl4 considered, #ould @ustif4 a diCerent
conclusion.
%$
?ceptions (.), (>), (A), and ($$) appl4 to the present petition.
't issue is the proper interpretation of the Duestioned insurance polic4.
Petitioner clai3s that the !' erred in construin/ a <re insurance polic4 on
boo2 debts as one coverin/ the unpaid accounts of IM! and :SPI since such
insurance applies to loss of the read4*3ade clothin/ 3aterials sold and
delivered to petitioner.
The !ourt disa/rees #ith petitioner6s stand.
It is #ell*settled that #hen the #ords of a contract are plain and readil4
understood, there is no roo3 for construction.
%%
In this case, the
Duestioned insurance policies provide covera/e for =boo2 debts in
connection #ith read4*3ade clothin/ 3aterials #hich have been sold or
delivered to various custo3ers and dealers of the Insured an4#here in the
Philippines.=
%0
5 and de<ned boo2 debts as the =unpaid account still
appearin/ in the "oo2 of 'ccount of the Insured .> da4s after the ti3e of
the loss covered under this Polic4.=
%.
No#here is it provided in the
Duestioned insurance policies that the sub@ect of the insurance is the /oods
sold and delivered to the custo3ers and dealers of the insured.
Indeed, #hen the ter3s of the a/ree3ent are clear and e?plicit that the4
do not @ustif4 an atte3pt to read into it an4 alle/ed intention of the parties,
the ter3s are to be understood literall4 @ust as the4 appear on the face of
the contract.
%>
Thus, #hat #ere insured a/ainst #ere the accounts of IM!
and :SPI #ith petitioner #hich re3ained unpaid .> da4s after the loss
throu/h <re, and not the loss or destruction of the /oods delivered.
Petitioner ar/ues that IM! bears the ris2 of loss because it e?pressl4
reserved o#nership of the /oods b4 stipulatin/ in the sales invoices that
=JiKt is further a/reed that 3erel4 for purpose of securin/ the pa43ent of
the purchase price the above described 3erchandise re3ains the propert4
of the vendor until the purchase price thereof is full4 paid.=
%,
The !ourt is not persuaded.
The present case clearl4 falls under para/raph ($), 'rticle $>&. of the !ivil
!ode7
'RT. $>&.. Enless other#ise a/reed, the /oods re3ain at the seller6s ris2
until the o#nership therein is transferred to the bu4er, but #hen the
o#nership therein is transferred to the bu4er the /oods are at the bu4er6s
ris2 #hether actual deliver4 has been 3ade or not, e?cept that7
($) 8here deliver4 of the /oods has been 3ade to the bu4er or to a bailee
for the bu4er, in pursuance of the contract and the o#nership in the /oods
has been retained b4 the seller 3erel4 to secure perfor3ance b4 the bu4er
of his obli/ations under the contract, the /oods are at the bu4er6s ris2 fro3
the ti3e of such deliver45 (3phasis supplied)
? ? ? ?
Thus, #hen the seller retains o#nership onl4 to insure that the bu4er #ill
pa4 its debt, the ris2 of loss is borne b4 the bu4er.
%A
'ccordin/l4, petitioner
bears the ris2 of loss of the /oods delivered.
IM! and :SPI did not lose co3plete interest over the /oods. The4 have an
insurable interest until full pa43ent of the value of the delivered /oods.
Enli2e the civil la# concept of res perit do3ino, #here o#nership is the
basis for consideration of #ho bears the ris2 of loss, in propert4 insurance,
one6s interest is not deter3ined b4 concept of title, but #hether insured
has substantial econo3ic interest in the propert4.
%-
Section $0 of our Insurance !ode de<nes insurable interest as =ever4
interest in propert4, #hether real or personal, or an4 relation thereto, or
liabilit4 in respect thereof, of such nature that a conte3plated peril 3i/ht
directl4 da3nif4 the insured.= Parentheticall4, under Section $. of the
sa3e !ode, an insurable interest in propert4 3a4 consist in7 (a) an e?istin/
interest5 (b) an inchoate interest founded on e?istin/ interest5 or (c) an
e?pectanc4, coupled #ith an e?istin/ interest in that out of #hich the
e?pectanc4 arises.
Therefore, an insurable interest in propert4 does not necessaril4 i3pl4 a
propert4 interest in, or a lien upon, or possession of, the sub@ect 3atter of
the insurance, and neither the title nor a bene<cial interest is reDuisite to
the e?istence of such an interest, it is suLcient that the insured is so
situated #ith reference to the propert4 that he #ould be liable to loss
should it be in@ured or destro4ed b4 the peril a/ainst #hich it is
insured.
%1
'n4one has an insurable interest in propert4 #ho derives a
bene<t fro3 its e?istence or #ould suCer loss fro3 its destruction.
0&
Indeed,
a vendor or seller retains an insurable interest in the propert4 sold so lon/
as he has an4 interest therein, in other #ords, so lon/ as he #ould suCer
b4 its destruction, as #here he has a vendor6s lien.
0$
In this case, the
insurable interest of IM! and :SPI pertain to the unpaid accounts appearin/
in their "oo2s of 'ccount .> da4s after the ti3e of the loss covered b4 the
policies.
The ne?t Duestion is7 Is petitioner liable for the unpaid accountsM
Petitioner6s ar/u3ent that it is not liable because the <re is a fortuitous
event under 'rticle $$A.
0%
of the !ivil !ode is 3isplaced. 's held earlier,
petitioner bears the loss under 'rticle $>&. ($) of the !ivil !ode.
Moreover, it 3ust be stressed that the insurance in this case is not for loss
of /oods b4 <re but for petitioner6s accounts #ith IM! and :SPI that
re3ained unpaid .> da4s after the <re. 'ccordin/l4, petitioner6s obli/ation
is for the pa43ent of 3one4. 's correctl4 stated b4 the !', #here the
obli/ation consists in the pa43ent of 3one4, the failure of the debtor to
3a2e the pa43ent even b4 reason of a fortuitous event shall not relieve
hi3 of his liabilit4.
00
The rationale for this is that the rule that an obli/or
should be held e?e3pt fro3 liabilit4 #hen the loss occurs thru a fortuitous
event onl4 holds true #hen the obli/ation consists in the deliver4 of a
deter3inate thin/ and there is no stipulation holdin/ hi3 liable even in
case of fortuitous event. It does not appl4 #hen the obli/ation is pecuniar4
in nature.
0.
Ender 'rticle $%,0 of the !ivil !ode, =JiKn an obli/ation to deliver a /eneric
thin/, the loss or destruction of an4thin/ of the sa3e 2ind does not
e?tin/uish the obli/ation.= If the obli/ation is /eneric in the sense that the
ob@ect thereof is desi/nated 3erel4 b4 its class or /enus #ithout an4
particular desi/nation or ph4sical se/re/ation fro3 all others of the sa3e
class, the loss or destruction of an4thin/ of the sa3e 2ind even #ithout the
debtor6s fault and before he has incurred in dela4 #ill not have the eCect of
e?tin/uishin/ the obli/ation.
0>
This rule is based on the principle that the
/enus of a thin/ can never perish. +enus nunDuan perit.
0,
'n obli/ation to
pa4 3one4 is /eneric5 therefore, it is not e?cused b4 fortuitous loss of an4
speci<c propert4 of the debtor.
0A
Thus, #hether <re is a fortuitous event or petitioner #as ne/li/ent are
3atters i33aterial to this case. 8hat is relevant here is #hether it has
been established that petitioner has outstandin/ accounts #ith IM! and
:SPI.
8ith respect to IM!, the respondent has adeDuatel4 established its clai3.
?hibits =!= to =!*%%=
0-
sho# that petitioner has an outstandin/ account
#ith IM! in the a3ount of P%,$$1,%&>.&&. ?hibit ==
01
is the chec2 voucher
evidencin/ pa43ent to IM!. ?hibit =F=
.&
is the subro/ation receipt
e?ecuted b4 IM! in favor of respondent upon receipt of the insurance
proceeds. 'll these docu3ents have been properl4 identi<ed, presented
and 3ar2ed as e?hibits in court. The subro/ation receipt, b4 itself, is
suLcient to establish not onl4 the relationship of respondent as insurer and
IM! as the insured, but also the a3ount paid to settle the insurance clai3.
The ri/ht of subro/ation accrues si3pl4 upon pa43ent b4 the insurance
co3pan4 of the insurance clai3.
.$
Respondent6s action a/ainst petitioner is
sDuarel4 sanctioned b4 'rticle %%&A of the !ivil !ode #hich provides7
'rt. %%&A. If the plaintiC6s propert4 has been insured, and he has received
inde3nit4 fro3 the insurance co3pan4 for the in@ur4 or loss arisin/ out of
the #ron/ or breach of contract co3plained of, the insurance co3pan4
shall be subro/ated to the ri/hts of the insured a/ainst the #ron/doer or
the person #ho has violated the contract. ? ? ?
Petitioner failed to refute respondent6s evidence.
's to :SPI, respondent failed to present suLcient evidence to prove its
cause of action. No evidentiar4 #ei/ht can be /iven to ?hibit =F :evi
Strauss=,
.%
a letter dated 'pril %0, $11$ fro3 petitioner6s +eneral Mana/er,
Stephen S. +aisano, 9r., since it is not an ad3ission of petitioner6s unpaid
account #ith :SPI. It onl4 con<r3s the loss of :evi6s products in the a3ount
of P>0>,,$0.&& in the <re that raHed petitioner6s buildin/ on Februar4 %>,
$11$.
Moreover, there is no proof of full settle3ent of the insurance clai3 of :SPI5
no subro/ation receipt #as oCered in evidence. Thus, there is no evidence
that respondent has been subro/ated to an4 ri/ht #hich :SPI 3a4 have
a/ainst petitioner. Failure to substantiate the clai3 of subro/ation is fatal
to petitioner6s case for recover4 of the a3ount of P>0>,,$0.&&.
8BRFOR, the petition is partl4 GRANTE$. The assailed Decision dated
October $$, %&&& and Resolution dated 'pril $$, %&&$ of the !ourt of
'ppeals in !'*+.R. !V No. ,$-.- are AIRME$ #ith
the MO$IICATIONthat the order to pa4 the a3ount of P>0>,,$0.&& to
respondent is $E%ETE$ for lac2 of factual basis.
No pronounce3ent as to costs.
SO ORDRD.
GAISANO CAGAYAN &. INSURANCE CO. O NORT! AMERICA 'C()e
*+,e-.
GR No. 147839
June 08, 2006
ACTS
Intercapitol Mar2etin/ !orporation (IM!) is the 3a2er of 8ran/ler "lue
9eans. 8hile :evi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. (:SPI) is the local distributor of
products bearin/ trade3ar2s o#ned b4 :evi Strauss ; !o. IM! and :SPI
separatel4 obtained fro3 respondent Insurance !o3pan4 of North '3erica
(I!N') <re insurance policies for their boo2 debt endorse3ents related to
their read4*3ade clothin/ 3aterials #hich have been sold or delivered to
various custo3ers and dealers of the Insured an4#here in the Philippines
#hich are unpaid.> da4s after the ti3e of the loss.
Petitioner +aisano !a/a4an, Inc. is a custo3er and dealer of IM! and :SPI
products. It o#ns the +aisano Superstore !o3ple? #hich #as consu3ed
b4 <re in $11$. Included in the ite3s destro4ed in the <re #ere stoc2s of
read4*3ade clothin/ 3aterials sold and delivered b4 IM! and :SPI.
Respondent <led a co3plaint for da3a/es a/ainst +aisano !a/a4an, Inc.
alle/in/ that IM! and :SPI <led their clai3s under their respective <re
insurance policies #hich it paid, thus it #as subro/ated to their ri/hts.
Petitioner averred it not be held liable because the ite3s #ere destro4ed
due to fortuitous event or force 3a@eure. The RT! ruled that IM! and :SPI
retained o#nership of the delivered /oods until full4 paid, it 3ust bear the
loss (res perit do3ino). The !' ruled other#ise and ordered petitioner to
pa4 respondent Php %,$$1,%&>.,& and Php >0>,,$0.&& the a3ount paid b4
the latter to IM! and :SPI, respectivel4.
ISSUE
8ON respondent 3a4 clai3 a/ainst petitioner for the insured debt.
!E%$
Ges, but the order to pa4 Php >0>,,$0 is deleted for lac2 of factual basis.
The insurance polic4 is clear that the sub@ect of the insurance is the boo2
debts and not /oods sold and delivered to the custo3ers and dealers of
the insured.
Ender 'rt. $>&. of the !ivil code, unless other#ise a/reed, the /oods
re3ain at the seller6s ris2 until the o#nership therein is transferred to the
bu4er, but #hen the o#nership therein is transferred to the bu4er the
/oods are at the bu4er6s ris2 #hether actual deliver4 has been 3ade or
not5 except where delivery of the goods has been made to the
buyer or to a bailee for the buyer, in pursuance of the contract
and the ownership in the goods has been retained by the seller
merely to secure performance by the buyer of his obligations
under the contract, the goods are at the buyer's risk from the time
of such delivery.
IM! and :SPI did not lose co3plete interest over the /oods. The4 have an
insurable interest until full pa43ent of the value of the delivered /oods.
Enli2e the civil la# concept of res perit do3ino, #here o#nership is the
basis for consideration of #ho bears the ris2 of loss, in propert4 insurance,
one6s interest is not deter3ined b4 concept of title, but #hether insured
has substantial econo3ic interest in the propert4.
Section $0 of our Insurance !ode de<nes insurable interest as =ever4
interest in propert4, #hether real or personal, or an4 relation thereto, or
liabilit4 in respect thereof, of such nature that a conte3plated peril 3i/ht
directl4 da3nif4 the insured.= Parentheticall4, under Section $. of the
sa3e !ode, an insurable interest in propert4 3a4 consist in7 (a) an e?istin/
interest5 (b) an inchoate interest founded on e?istin/ interest5 or (c) an
e?pectanc4, coupled #ith an e?istin/ interest in that out of #hich the
e?pectanc4 arises.
'n4one #ho derives a bene<t fro3 its e?istence or #ould suCer loss fro3
its destruction has an insurable interest in the said propert4.
The rationale that an obli/or should be held e?e3pt fro3 liabilit4 #hen the
loss occurs thru a fortuitous event onl4 holds true #hen the obli/ation
consists in the deliver4 of a deter3inate thin/ and there is no stipulation
holdin/ hi3 liable even in case of fortuitous event. It does not appl4 #hen
the obli/ation is pecuniar4 in nature.
Re: deletion of Php 535,613.00
The subro/ation receipt, b4 itself, is suLcient to establish not onl4 the
relationship of respondent as insurer and IM! as the insured, but also the
a3ount paid to settle the insurance clai3
'rt. %%&A of the !ivil !ode states that if the plaintiC6s propert4 has been
insured, and he has received inde3nit4 fro3 the insurance co3pan4 for
the in@ur4 or loss arisin/ out of the #ron/ or breach of contract co3plained
of, the insurance co3pan4 shall be subro/ated to the ri/hts of the insured
a/ainst the #ron/doer or the person #ho has violated the contract.
Bo#ever, LS! failed to o"er any subrogation receipt as evidence.
Failure to substantiate the clai3 of subro/ation is fatal to petitioner6s case
for recover4 of the a3ount of P>0>,,$0.&&.