Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Insurance Case Digest: Gaisano Cagayan,

Inc. V. Insurance Company Of North America


(2006)
G.R. No. 147839

June 8, 2006

Lessons Applicable: Existing Interest (Insurance)


Laws Applicable: Article 1504,Article 1263, Article 2207 of the Civil

Code, Section 13 of Insurance Code

FACTS:

Intercapitol Marketing Corporation (IMC) is the maker of Wrangler Blue


Jeans. while Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. (LSPI) is the local distributor
of products bearing trademarks owned by Levi Strauss & Co
IMC and LSPI separately obtained from Insurance Company of North
America fire insurance policies for their book debt endorsements related
to their ready-made clothing materials which have been sold or delivered
to various customers and dealers of the Insured anywhere in the
Philippines which are unpaid 45 days after the time of the loss
February 25, 1991: Gaisano Superstore Complex in Cagayan de Oro
City, owned by Gaisano Cagayan, Inc., containing the ready-made
clothing materials sold and delivered by IMC and LSPI was consumed by
fire.
February 4, 1992: Insurance Company of North America filed a
complaint for damages against Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. alleges that IMC
and LSPI filed their claims under their respective fire insurance policies
which it paid thus it was subrogated to their rights
Gaisano Cagayan, Inc: not be held liable because it was destroyed
due to fortuities event or force majeure
RTC: IMC and LSPI retained ownership of the delivered goods until fully
paid, it must bear the loss (res perit domino)
CA: Reversed - sales invoices is an exception under Article 1504 (1) of
the Civil Code to res perit domino

ISSUE: W/N Insurance Company of North America can claim against Gaisano Cagayan
for the debt that was isnured

HELD: YES. petition is partly GRANTED. order to pay P535,613 is DELETED

insurance policy is clear that the subject of the insurance is the book
debts and NOT goods sold and delivered to the customers and dealers of
the insured
ART. 1504. Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's
risk until the ownership therein is transferred to the buyer, but when the
ownership therein is transferred to the buyer the goods are at the buyer's
risk whether actual delivery has been made or not, except that:
(1) 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;
IMC and LSPI did not lose complete interest over the goods. They have
an insurable interest until full payment of the value of the delivered
goods. Unlike the civil law concept of res perit domino, where ownership
is the basis for consideration of who bears the risk of loss, in property
insurance, one's interest is not determined by concept of title, but
whether insured has substantial economic interest in the property
Section 13 of our Insurance Code defines insurable interest as "every
interest in property, whether real or personal, or any relation thereto, or
liability in respect thereof, of such nature that a contemplated peril might
directly damnify the insured." Parenthetically, under Section 14 of the
same Code, an insurable interest in property may consist in: (a) an
existing interest; (b) an inchoate interest founded on existing interest; or
(c) an expectancy, coupled with an existing interest in that out of which
the expectancy arises.
Anyone has an insurable interest in property who derives a benefit
from its existence or would suffer loss from its destruction.
it is sufficient that the insured is so situated with reference to the
property that he would be liable to loss should it be injured or destroyed
by the peril against which it is insured
an insurable interest in property does not necessarily imply a
property interest in, or a lien upon, or possession of, the subject
matter of the insurance, and neither the title nor a beneficial
interest is requisite to the existence of such an interest

insurance in this case is not for loss of goods by fire but for petitioner's
accounts with IMC and LSPI that remained unpaid 45 days after the fire
- obligation is pecuniary in nature
obligor should be held exempt from liability when the loss occurs
thru a fortuitous event only holds true when the obligation consists in the
delivery of a determinate thing and there is no stipulation holding him
liable even in case of fortuitous event
Article 1263 of the Civil Code in an obligation to deliver a generic
thing, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not
extinguish the obligation (Genus nunquan perit)
The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not only the
relationship of respondent as insurer and IMC as the insured, but also the
amount paid to settle the insurance claim
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has
received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss
arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the
insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured
against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract.
As to LSPI, no subrogation receipt was offered in evidence.
Failure to substantiate the claim of subrogation is fatal to
petitioner's case for recovery of the amount of P535,613