Ang Giok Chip v Springfield G.R. No.

L-33637
December 31, 1931
J. Malcolm

Facts:
Ang insured his warehouse for the total value of Php
60,000. One of these, amounting to 10,000, was
with Springfield Insurance Company. His warehouse
burned down, then he attempted to recover 8,000
from Springfield for the indemnity. The insurance
company interposed its defense on a rider in the
policy in the form of Warranty F, fixing the amount
of hazardous good that can be stored in a building to
be covered by the insurance. They claimed that Ang
violated the 3 percent limit by placing hazardous
goods to as high as 39 percent of all the goods
stored in the building. His suit to recover was
granted by the trial court. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether a warranty referred to in the policy
as forming part of the contract of insurance and
in the form of a rider to the insurance policy, is null
and void because not complying with
thePhilippine Insurance Act.

Held: No. The warranty is valid. Petition dismissed.

Ratio:
The Insurance Act, Section 65, taken from California
law, states:
"Every express warranty, made at or before the
execution of a policy, must be contained in the policy
itself, or in another instrument signed by the insured
and referred to in the policy, as making a part of it."
Warranty F, indemnifying for a value of Php 20,000
and pasted on the left margin of the policy stated:
It is hereby declared and agreed that during the
currency of this policy no hazardous goods be stored
in the Building to which this insurance applies or in
any building communicating therewith, provided,
always, however, that the Insured be permitted to
stored a small quantity of the hazardous goods
specified below, but not exceeding in all 3 per cent of
the total value of the whole of the goods or
merchandise contained in said warehouse, viz; . . . .
Also, the court stated a book that said, "any express
warranty or condition is always a part of the policy,
but, like any other part of an express contract, may
be written in the margin, or contained in proposals
or documents expressly referred to in the policy, and
so made a part of it."
It is well settled that a rider attached to a policy is a
part of the contract, to the same extent and with like
effect as it actually embodied therein. In the second
place, it is equally well settled that an
express warranty must appear upon the face of the
policy, or be clearly incorporated therein and made a
part thereof by explicit reference, or by words clearly
evidencing such intention.
The court concluded that Warranty F is contained in
the policy itself, because by the contract of insurance
agreed to by the parties it was made to be a part. It
wasnt aseparate instrument agreed to by the
parties.
The receipt of the policy by the insured without
objection binds him. It was his duty to read the
policy and know its terms. He also never chose to
accept a different policy by considering the earlier
one as a mistake. Hence, the rider is valid.

GERCIO v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE
G.R. No. 23703 September 28, 1925
Lessons Applicable:
Blood relationship (Insurance)
Revocable Designation (Insurance)
FACTS:
January 29, 1910: Sun Life Assurance Co. of
Canada issued a 20-year endowment insurance
policy on the life of Hilario Gercio
insurance company agreed to insure the life of
Gercio for the sum of P2,000, to be paid him on
February 1, 1930, or if the insured should die
before said date, then to his wife, Mrs. Andrea
Zialcita, should she survive him; otherwise to
the executors, administrators, or assigns of the
insured
policy did not include any provision reserving to
the insured the right to change the beneficiary
End of 1919: she was convicted of the crime of
adultery
September 4, 1920: a decree of divorce was
issued
March 4, 1922: Gercio formally notified the Sun
Life that he had revoked his donation in favor of
Andrea Zialcita, and that he had designated in
her stead his present wife, Adela Garcia de
Gercio, as the beneficiary of the policy
Sun Life refused
Gercio filed a petition for mandamus to
compel Sun Life
Trial Court: favored Gercio
ISSUE: W/N Gercio has the right to change the
beneficiary of the policy


HELD: NO. Dismissed.
The wife has an insurable interest in the life of
her husband.
The beneficiary has an absolute vested interest
in the policy from the date of its issuance and
delivery. So when a policy of life insurance is
taken out by the husband in which the wife is
named as beneficiary, she has a subsisting
interest in the policy
applies to a policy to which there are attached
the incidents of a loan value, cash surrender
value, an automatic extension by premiums
paid, and to an endowment policy, as well as to
an ordinary life insurance policy.
If the husband wishes to retain to himself the
control and ownership of the policy he may so
provide in the policy.
But if the policy contains no provision
authorizing a change of beneficiary without the
beneficiary's consent, the insured cannot make
such change.
Accordingly, it is held that a life insurance policy
of a husband made payable to the wife as
beneficiary, is the separate property of the
beneficiary and beyond the control of the
husband.
effect produced by the divorce, the Philippine
Divorce Law, Act No. 2710, merely provides in
section 9 that the decree of divorce shall
dissolve the community property as soon as
such decree becomes final
absence of a statute to the contrary, that if a
policy is taken out upon a husband's life the wife
is named as beneficiary therein, a subsequent
divorce does not destroy her rights under the
policy
Neither the husband, nor the wife, nor both
together had power to destroy the vested
interest of the children in the policy.
Separate Opinion:
Johnson, Concurring Opinion:
I agree with the majority of the court, that the
judgment of the lower court should be revoked,
but for a different reason. In my judgment, the
action is premature and should have been
dismissed.