Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Fact:
1. On october 1, 1941, Respondent corporation G.R. No. L-1669 August 31, 1950
obtained a Fire insurance in the amount of
100K covering merchandise contained in a PAZ LOPEZ DE CONSTANTINO, plaintiff-appellant,
building located in binondo, Manila. vs.
2. On February 1942, the building and insured ASIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, defendant-
merchandise was burned. appellee.
3. In due time the respondent submitted to the
petitioner its claim under the policy. Fact:
4. The petitioner refused to pay the claim on the
ground that the policy issued in favor of the
1. On September 27, 1941, Asia Life Insurance
respondent had ceased to be inforce on the
Company issued Policy no. 93912 for P3, 000
date the US declared war against the germany.
for the life of Arcadio Constantino for a term of
5. Respondent corporation being controlled by the
twenty years.
german subjects and petitioner being a
company under american jurisdiction. 2. The 1st premium covers the period up to
6. Petitioner, in pursuance of the order of the September 26, 1942.
Director of Bureau of Financing, paid the 3. Plaintiff was regularly appointed as beneficiary.
respondents. 4. After the 1st payment, no further premiums were
7. On August 6, 1946, the petitioner filed a paid.
recovery case in CFI of Manila for the sum paid 5. The insured died on September 22, 1944.
to the respondents which CFI dismissed the 6. Beneficiary demanded for payment but was
case. refused on the ground of non-payment of the
8. CA affirmed the CFI decision hence this case. premiums.
Issue: 7. Plaintiff maintains that the closing of defendant
offices in manila caused the non-payment of the
Whether the policy in question become null and premiums during the Japanese occupation and
void upon the declaration of war between the US and the impossible circumstances created by war.
Germany. 8. Defendant on the other hand asserts that the
policy had lapsed for non-payment of
Held: premiums, in accordance with the contract of
1. Yes. Under S8 of the Philippine Insurance Law the parties and the law applicable to the
provides that "anyone except a public enemy situation.
may be insured." It stands to reason that an 9. The lower court absolved the defendant. Hence
insurance policy ceases to be allowable as this appeal.
soon as an insured becomes a public enemy.
2. The respondent having become an enemy Issue:
corporation on December 10, 1941, the
insurance policy issued in its favor on October
Whether the respondent erred in absolving defendant
1, 1941, by the petitioner had ceased to be valid
from all liability on the policy in question?
and enforceable, and since the insured goods
were burned after December 10, 1941, and
during the war, the respondent was not entitled Ruling:
to any indemnity under said policy from the
petitioner. 1. No. Because the policy in question expressly
3. However, elementary rules of justice (in the stipulates that all premium payments are due in
absence of specific provision in the Insurance advance and any unpunctuality in making any
Law) require that the premium paid by the such payment shall cause this policy to laps."
respondent for the period covered by its policy Wherefore, it would seem that pursuant to the
from December 11, 1941, should be returned by express terms of the policy, non-payment of
the petitioner. premium produces its avoidance.
4. Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby 2. In Glaraga vs. Sun Life Ass. Co., The court held
reversed and the respondent corporation is that a life policy was avoided because the
ordered to pay to the petitioner the sum of premium had not been paid within the time
fixed, since by its express terms, non-payment 7. Hence this appeal.
of any premium when due or within the thirty-
day period of grace, ipso facto caused the Issue:
policy to lapse
3. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the amount
4. contract is not merely suspended, but is of the policy.
abrogated by reason of non-payments is
peculiarly of the essence of the contract. It Ruling:
additionally holds that it would be unjust to allow
the insurer to retain the reserve value of the 1. Since this action was decided by the court
policy, which is the excess of the premiums below, several cases analogous to this one in
paid over the actual risk carried during the its main characteristics have come up before
years when the policy had been in force. this Court. (Paz Lopez de Constantino vs. Asia
5. The case, therefore, is one in which time is Life Insurance Company,1 G.R. No. L-1669;
material and of the essence of the contract. Agustina Peralta vs. Asia Life Insurance
Non-payment at the day involves absolute Company,2 G.R. No. L-1670; James McGuire
forfeiture if such were the terms of the contract, vs. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co;3 G.
as is the case here. Courts cannot with safety R. No. L-3581; National Leather Co; Inc. vs.
vary the stipulation of the parties by introducing The United States Life Insurance Co.,4 G.R. No.
equities for the relief of the insured against their L-2668; Victoria Hidalgo Vda. de Carrero, et al.,
own negligence. vs. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co.,5 G.
6. For all the foregoing, the lower court's decision R. No. L-3032; and West Coast Life Insurance
absolving the defendant from all liability on the Co. vs. Patricio H. Gubagaras,6 G. R. No. L-
policies in question, is hereby affirmed, without 2810) In Paz Lopez de Constantinos. Asia Life
costs. Insurance Company, G. R. No. L-1669, the
leading case, the Court speaking through Mr.
Justice Bengzon, adopted this doctrine:
G.R. No. L-4197 March 20, 1952 The case, therefore, is one in which time is
material and of the essence of the contract.
Non-payment at the day involves absolute
FIDELA SALES DE GONZAGA, plaintiff-appellant, forfeiture is such be the terms of the contract,
vs. as is the case here. Courts cannot with safety
THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE vary the stipulation of the parties by introducing
COMPANY, defendant-appellee. equities for the relief of the insured against their
own negligence.
Fact:
The aforecited decisions are decisive of the
1. On September 26, 1939 the Crown Life proposition that non-payment of premiums by
Insurance Co., whose home office is in Toronto, reason of war puts an end to the contract.
Canada, issued to Ramon Gonzaga through its
branch office in Manila a 20-year endowment 2. Gonzaga could have taken advantage if he was
policy for P15, 000 really intent on preserving his policy.
2. The insured paid in due time the agreed yearly Uncontroverted or admitted is the fact that the
premium, which was P591.00, for three defendant's agent, through whom he had been
consecutive years, the last payment having insured, lived in Malabon, Rizal, and was his
been effected on September 6, 1941. close acquaintance; and so were some of the
3. On account of the outbreak of war, no defendant's Filipino employees who handled
premiums were paid after that date, although the insurance business of Hanson, Orth and
the policy was continued in force up to June 12, Stevenson during the occupation. And Gonzaga
1943, under its automatic premium loan clause. admittedly come to Manila on a visit every now
4. Ramon Gonzaga died on June 27, 1945 from and then, and could have, without difficulty,
an accident. contacted any of those people.
5. The beneficiary was unable to collect the 3. In addition, the policy carried a clause providing
amount of the said policy, which began this suit for its reinstatement under certain conditions
on December 1947. within three years from the date of lapse on
6. The defendant set up the defense that the application of the insured. The present policy
policy had lapsed by non-payment of the lapsed on June 12, 1943, the Company's
stipulated premiums of the stipulated dates. Manila branch was reopened on May 1, 1945
And the trial court in a carefully written decision and resumed regular business through the
ruled against the plaintiff. same general agents at the Wilson Building on
Juan Luna Street, Manila and Ramon Gonzaga 11. Property was destroyed by fire. SMB filed an
died on June 27, 1945. It is undoubted that action in court to recover on the policies.
Gonzaga knew all that. It is not denied that he Harding was made a defendant because by
was an employee in the United States Navy, virtue of the sale, he became the owner of the
that the united States Navy had an office in the property, although the policies were issued in
same Wilson Building, and that he came at SMBs name.
least twice a month to that office for his salary. 12. SMB sought to recover the proceeds to the
4. Both in law and in reason, the action was extent of its mortgage credit with the balance to
properly dismissed and the appealed decision is go to Harding.
hereby affirmed, with costs 13. Insurance Companies contended that they were
not liable to Harding because their liability under
G.R. No. L-7667 November 28, 1955 the policies was limited to the insurable
interests of SMB only.
CHERIE PALILEO, plaintiff-appellee, 14. SMB eventually reached a settlement with the
vs. insurance companies and was paid the balance
BEATRIZ COSIO, defendant-appellant. of its mortgage credit.
15. Harding was left to fend for himself. Trial court
Fact: ruled against Harding.
16. Hence the appeal.
G.R. No. L-14300 January 19, 1920
Issue:
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, ETC., plaintiff-appellee, Whether or not the insurance companies are
vs. liable to Harding for the balance of the proceeds of the
LAW UNION AND ROCK INSURANCE CO., (LTD.) ET 2 policies.
AL., defendants-appellees.
HENRY HARDING, defendant-appellant. Ruling:
Whether or not the proceeds of insurance taken by a Intestate estate of the late Esperanza J. Villanueva.
corporation on the life of an important official to indemnify MARIANO J. VILLANUEVA, claimant-appellant,
it against loss in case of his death, are taxable as income vs.
under the Philippine Income Tax Law? PABLO ORO, administrator.
Ruling:
Facts:
1. West Coast Life Insurance Company issued two
1. The Income Tax Law for the Philippines is Act policies of insurance on the life of Esperanza
No. 2833, as amended. In chapter I On Villanueva, one for 2k, maturing April 1, 1943;
Individuals, is to be found section 4 which and other for 3k maturing Mar. 31, 1943.
provides that, "The following incomes shall be 2. In both policies, West agreed to pay 2T either to
exempt from the provisions of this law: (a) The Esperanza if still living on Apr 1, 1943; or to
proceeds of life insurance policies paid to beneficiary Bartolome Villanueva, or the father of
beneficiaries upon the death of the insured ... ." the insured immediately upon receipt of the proof
The Chapter on Corporations does not provide of death of Esperanza.
as above. It is certain that the proceeds of life 3. The policy also gave her the right to change the
insurance policies are exempt. It is not so certain beneficiary.
that the proceeds of life insurance policies paid to 4. In 1940, Bartolome died, and he was substituted
corporate beneficiaries upon the death of the as beneficiary under the policies by Mariano,
insured are likewise exempt. Esparanzas brother.
2. Thus, as to the point before us, it was made 5. Esperanza died in 1944 without having collected
clear, when not only in the part of the law the insurance proceeds. Adverse claims for the
proceeds were presented by the estate of consent for the minor son must not only be
Esperanza on one hand and by Mariano on the given by his father as legal guardian but it must
other. also be authorized by the court in a
6. CFI held that the estate of Esperanza was guardianship proceeding.
entitled to the proceeds to the exclusion of the 6. After said denial, Mrs. Nario signified her
beneficiary. decision to surrender her policy to which she
was also entitled under the provions of the
Issue: same policy and demanded its cash value
which amounted to P520.00
Whether or not the beneficiary is entitled to the 7. Insurance company also denied the surrender.
proceeds? 8. On September 1963, Mr. and Mrs. Nario
brought suit against the PALIC, seeking to
Ruling: compel the latter to grant their policy loan
1. No. Under the policies, the insurer obligated itself application and/or accept the surrender of said
to pay the insurance proceeds to: (1) the insured policy in exchange for its cash value.
if the latter lived on the dates of maturity; or (2) 9. Trial Court dismissed the complain on the
the beneficiary if the insured died during the grounds that such consent was given by the
continuance of the policies. The first contingency father-guardian without any judicial authority
excludes the second, and vice versa. In other 10. Hence this petition.
words, as the insured Esperanza was living on
April 1 and March 31, 1943, the proceeds are Issue:
payable exclusively to her or to her estate unless Whether the consent of the minor child thru his Father-
she had before her death otherwise assigned the Guardian is valid.
matured policies
Ruling:
2. The beneficiary could be entitled to said proceeds
only in default of the first contingency. To sustain 1. No. Under Art. 320 and 326 which states that:
the beneficiarys claim would be to altogether
eliminate from the policies the condition that the a. "The father, or in his absence the
insurer agrees to pay to the insured if living. mother, is the legal administrator of the
property pertaining to the child under
3. The appealed order is, therefore, hereby affirmed, parental authority. If the property is
and it is so ordered with costs against the worth more than two thousand pesos,
appellant. the father or mother shall give a bond
subject to the approval of the Court of
First Instance."
No. L-22796. June 26, 1967. b. "When the property of the child is worth
more than two thousand pesos, the
father or mother shall be considered a
DELFIN NARIO, and ALEJANDRA SANTOS-NARIO. guardian of the child's property, subject
to the duties and obligations of
plaintiffsappellants, vs. THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN guardians under the Rules of Court."
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, defendant-appellee. 2. It appearing that the minor beneficiary's vested
interest or right on the policy exceeds two
Fact: thousand pesos (P2,000.-00); that plaintiffs did
not file any guardianship bond to be approved
1. Philippine American Life Insurance Co., issued by the court
life insurance policy in favor of Mrs. Alejandra 3. Plaintiffs-parents cannot possibly exercise the
Mario under a 20-year endowment plan with a powers vested on them, as legal administrators
face value of P5, 000. of their child's property, under articles 820 and
2. She designated her husband, Delfin Nario and 326 of the Civil Code.
their unemancipated minor son, Ernesto Nario, 4. As there was no such petition and bond, the
as her irrevocable beneficiaries. consent given by the father- guardian, for and in
3. On 1963, Mrs. Nario applied for a loan pursuant behalf of the minor son, without prior court
to one of the provisions of the said policy. authorization, to the policy loan application and
4. Said application bore the written signature and the surrender of said policy, was insufficient and
consent of Delfin Nario in 2 capacities: 1st, as ineffective, and defendant-appellee was justified
one of the irrevocable beneficiaries of the in disapproving the proposed transactions in
policy; and as the father-guardian of the minor question.
son and irrevocable beneficiary, Ernesto Nario. 5. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
5. Insurance Company denied said application, affirmed. Costs against appellants Nario. So
manifesting to the policy holder that the written ordered.
*
G.R. No. 54216. July 19, 1989. questioned Orders of the respondent Judge are
DIMAYUGA, respondents.
Fact:
a. On January 15, 1968, Respondent procured an
ordinary life insurance policy from the petitioner
company and designated his wife and children
as irrevocable beneficiaries.
b. On February 1980, Respondent filed a petition
in CFI of Rizal to amend the designation of the
beneficiaries in his policy from irrevocable to
revocable.
c. Petitoner filed its comment and opposition to
petition
d. Respondent Judge denied the motion and
granted the petition.
e. MR was also denied. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether the designation of the irrevocable
beneficiaries could be change or amended without the
consent of all the irrevocable beneficiaries?
Ruling: