Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Insurance Case Digest: Traders Insurance & Surety Co. V.

Golangco, Et Al
(1954)
L-6442 Sep 21, 1954

FACTS:

1. Tomas Lianco and the Archbishop entered into a contract of lease on a parcel of
landowned by church
2. As lessee, Lianco erected a building on the leased portion of the churchs land.
3. Lianco transferred ownership of this building to Kaw Eng Si,who later transferred
the same to Golangco.
4. Transfers were made without the consent of the Archbishop
5. The Archbishop filed an ejectment case against Lianco, who appears to be
occupants of the premises building with others paying rent to Golangco.
6. The right of Golangco to receive rent on the building was judicially recognized in a
case decided between Lianco and others occupying the premises pursuant to a
compromise agreement.
7. The Archbishop did not exercise his option to question Golangcos rights as lessee
8. April 7,1949: Golangco applied for fire insurance with Traders Insurance and
Surety Co.
9. fire insurance policy states: "that all insurancecovered under said policy, includes
the 'rent or othersubject matter of insurance in respect of or inconnection with any
building or any property contained in any building"
10. June 5, 1949: the building premises was burned so Golangco requested
Traders Insurance to pay the insurance amount of 10,000 including the amount of
rent P1,100 monthly.
11. Traders insurance refused to pay the insurance for the rent averring that
Golangco has no insurable interest

ISSUE:
Whether Golangco has insurable interest on the rent of the building premises which may
lawfully/validly be subject of insurance?

HELD: YES.

Sec. 13 of the Insurance Code


Every interest in the 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, is an insurable interest.
Both at the time of the issuance of the policy and at the time of the fire, Golangco
was in legal possession of the premises, collecting rentals from its occupant.
The argument of Traders Insurance that a policy of insurance must specify the
interest of the insured in the property insured, if he is not the absolute owner
thereof, is not meritorious because it was the Traders, not Golangco, who prepared
that policy, and it cannot take advantage of its own acts to plaintiff's detriment;
and, in any case, this provisionwas substantially complied with by Golangco when
he made a full and clear statement of his interests to Trader's manager.
The contract between Lianco and the Archbishop only forbade Lianco from
transferring 'his rights as LESSEE but the contracts Lianco made in favor of Kaw
Eng Siand plaintiff Golangco did not transfer such rights; hence no written consent
thereto was necessary. At worst, the contract would be voidable, but not a void
contract, at the option of the Archbishop and it does not appear that it was ever
exercised