Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

G.R. No.

181132 June 5, 2009

Lessons Applicable: To whom insurance proceeds payable (Insurance)

Loreto Maramag designated as beneficiary his concubine Eva de Guzman Maramag
Vicenta Maramag and Odessa, Karl Brian, and Trisha Angelie (heirs of Loreto Maramag)
and his concubine Eva de Guzman Maramag, also suspected in the killing of Loreto and
his illegitimate children are claiming for his insurance.
Vicenta alleges that Eva is disqualified from claiming
RTC: Granted - civil code does NOT apply
CA: dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction for filing beyond reglementary period
ISSUE: W/N Eva can claim even though prohibited under the civil code against donation

HELD: YES. Petition is DENIED.

Any person who is forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be
named beneficiary of a life insurance policy of the person who cannot make any donation
to him
If a concubine is made the beneficiary, it is believed that the insurance contract will still
remain valid, but the indemnity must go to the legal heirs and not to the concubine, for
evidently, what is prohibited under Art. 2012 is the naming of the improper beneficiary.
SECTION 53. The insurance proceeds shall be applied exclusively to the proper interest
of the person in whose name or for whose benefit it is made unless otherwise specified in
the policy.
GR: only persons entitled to claim the insurance proceeds are either the insured, if still
alive; or the beneficiary, if the insured is already deceased, upon the maturation of the
EX: situation where the insurance contract was intended to benefit third persons who are
not parties to the same in the form of favorable stipulations or indemnity. In such a case,
third parties may directly sue and claim from the insurer
It is only in cases where the insured has not designated any beneficiary, or when the
designated beneficiary is disqualified by law to receive the proceeds, that the insurance
policy proceeds shall redound to the benefit of the estate of the insured
Insurance Case Digest: Capital Insurance & Surety Co. Inc. V. Plastic Era Co. Inc (1975)
G.R.No. L-22375 July 18, 1975
Lessons Applicable: Estoppel and credit extension (Insurance)
Laws Applicable: Article 1249 of the New Civil Code

December 17, 1960: Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. delivered to the respondent
Plastic Era Manufacturing Co., Inc. its open Fire Policy insuring its building, equipments,
raw materials, products and accessories located at Sheridan Street, Mandaluyong, Rizal
between December 15, 1960 1 pm - December 15, 1961 1 pm up to P100,000 but Plastic
Era did not pay the premium
January 8, 1961: Plastic Era delivered to Capital Insurance its partial payment through
check P1,000 postdated January 16, 1961
February 20, 1961: Capital Insurance tried to deposit the check but it was dishonored due
to lack of funds. According to the records, on January 19, 1961 Plastic Era has had a
bank balance of P1,193.41
January 18, 1961: Plastic Era's properties were destroyed by fire amounting to a loss
of P283,875. The property was also insured to Philamgen Insurance Company for
Capital Insurance refused Plastic Era's claim for failing to pay the insurance premium
CFI: favored Capital Insurance
CA: affirmed
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid insurance contract because there was an extention of credit
despite failing to encash the check payment

HELD: YES. Affirmed

Article 1249 of the New Civil Code
The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other
mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been
cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired
Capital Insurance accepted the promise of Plastic Era to pay the insurance premium
within 30 days from the effective date of policy. Considering that the insurance policy is
silent as to the mode of payment, Capital Insurance is deemed to have accepted the
promissory note in payment of the premium. This rendered the policy immediately
operative on the date it was delivered.
By accepting its promise to pay the insurance premium within thirty (30) days from the
effectivity date of the policy December 17, 1960 Capital Insurance had in effect
extended credit to Plastic Era.
Where credit is given by an insurance company for the payment of the premium it has no
right to cancel the policy for nonpayment except by putting the insured in default and
giving him personal notice
Having held the check for such an unreasonable period of time, Capital Insurance was
estopped from claiming a forfeiture of its policy for non-payment even if the check had
been dishonored later.
was exposed to the risk insured for any period, however brief or momentary. The obligation to
pay premiums when due is ordinarily as indivisible obligation to pay the entire premium.
G.R. No. 95546 November 6, 1992
International Underwriters (Phils.), Inc., respondent.

Sometime in early 1982, private respondent American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC),
represented by American International Underwriters (Phils.), Inc., issued in favor of petitioner
Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation (TUSCANY) Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-
9210452 on the latter's building and premises, for a period beginning 1 March 1982 and
ending 1 March 1983, with a total premium of P466,103.05. The premium was paid on
installments on 12 March 1982, 20 May 1982, 21 June 1982 and 16 November 1982, all of
which were accepted by private respondent.
Successive renewals of the policies were made in the same manner. On 1984, the policy was
again renewed and petitioner made two installment payments, both accepted by private
respondent, the first on 6 February 1984 for P52,000.00 and the second, on 6 June 1984 for
P100,000.00. Thereafter, petitioner refused to pay the balance of the premium.

Private respondent filed an action to recover the unpaid balance of P314,103.05 for Insurance
Policy. Petitioner explained that it discontinued the payment of premiums because the policy
did not contain a credit clause in its favor. Petitioner further claimed that the policy was never
binding and valid, and no risk attached to the policy. It then pleaded a counterclaim for
P152,000.00 for the premiums already paid for 1984-85, and in its answer with amended
counterclaim, sought the refund of P924,206.10 representing the premium payments for 1982-


(1) Trial Court: dismissed the complaint and counterclaim
(2) CA: ordering herein petitioner to pay the balance of the premiums due

Whether payment by installment of the premiums due on an insurance policy invalidates the
contract of insurance, in view of Sec. 77 of P.D. 612, otherwise known as the Insurance Code,
as amended, which provides:
Sec. 77. An insurer is entitled to the payment of the premium as soon as the thing is exposed to
the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or
contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until
the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy
whenever the grace period provision applies.

No, the contract remains valid even if the premiums were paid on installments. Certainly,
basic principles of equity and fairness would not allow the insurer to continue collecting and
accepting the premiums, although paid on installments, and later deny liability on the lame
excuse that the premiums were not prepared in full.
At the very least, both parties should be deemed in estoppel to question the arrangement they
have voluntarily accepted.
Moreover, as correctly observed by the appellate court, where the risk is entire and the
contract is indivisible, the insured is not entitled to a refund of the premiums paid if the insurer
Geagonia v CA G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995
Geagonia, owner of a store, obtained from Country Bankers fire insurance policy for
P100,000.00. The 1 year policy and covered thestock trading of dry goods. 1. The court agreed with the CA that the petitioner knew of the prior policies issued by the
PFIC. His letter of 18 January 1991 to the private respondent conclusively proves this
The policy noted the requirement that knowledge. His testimony to the contrary before the Insurance Commissioner and which the
latter relied upon cannot prevail over a written admission made ante litem motam. It was,
"3. The insured shall give notice to the Company of any insurance or insurances already indeed, incredible that he did not know about the prior policies since these policies were not
effected, or which may subsequently be effected, covering any of the property or properties new or original.
consisting of stocks in trade, goods in process and/or inventories only hereby insured, and
unless notice be given and the particulars of such insurance or insurances be stated therein or 2. Stated differently, provisions, conditions or exceptions in policies which tend to work a
endorsed in this policy pursuant to Section 50 of the Insurance Code, by or on behalf of the forfeiture of insurance policies should be construed most strictly against those for whose
Company before the occurrence of any loss or damage, all benefits under this policy shall be benefits they are inserted, and most favorably toward those against whom they are intended to
deemed forfeited, provided however, that this condition shall not apply when the total operate.
insurance or insurances in force at the time of the loss or damage is not more than
P200,000.00." With these principles in mind, Condition 3 of the subject policy is not totally free
from ambiguity and must be meticulously analyzed. Such analysis leads us to conclude that (a)
The petitioners stocks were destroyed by fire. He then filed a claim which was subsequently the prohibition applies only to double insurance, and (b) the nullity of the policy shall only be
denied because the petitioners stocks were covered by two other fire insurance policies for to the extent exceeding P200,000.00 of the total policies obtained.
Php 200,000 issued by PFIC. The basis of the private respondent's denial was the petitioner's
alleged violation of Condition 3 of the policy. Furthermore, by stating within Condition 3 itself that such condition shall not apply if the total
insurance in force at the time of loss does not exceed P200,000.00, the private respondent
Geagonia then filed a complaint against the private respondent in the Insurance Commission was amenable to assume a co-insurer's liability up to a loss not exceeding P200,000.00. What
for the recovery of P100,000.00 under fire insurance policy and damages. He claimed that he it had in mind was to discourage over-insurance. Indeed, the rationale behind the incorporation
knew the existence of the other two policies. But, he said that he had no knowledge of the of "other insurance" clause in fire policies is to prevent over-insurance and thus avert the
provision in the private respondent's policy requiring him to inform it of the prior policies and perpetration of fraud. When a property owner obtains insurance policies from two or more
this requirement was not mentioned to him by the private respondent's agent. insurers in a total amount that exceeds the property's value, the insured may have an
inducement to destroy the property for the purpose of collecting the insurance. The public as
The Insurance Commission found that the petitioner did not violate Condition 3 as he had no well as the insurer is interested in preventing a situation in which a fire would be profitable to
knowledge of the existence of the two fire insurance policies obtained from the PFIC; that it the insured.
was Cebu Tesing Textiles w/c procured the PFIC policies w/o informing him or securing his
consent; and that Cebu Tesing Textile, as his creditor, had insurable interest on the stocks.

The Insurance Commission then ordered the respondent company to pay complainant the sum
of P100,000.00 with interest and attorneys fees.

CA reversed the decision of the Insurance Commission because it found that the petitioner
knew of the existence of the two other policies issued by the PFIC.


1. WON the petitioner had not disclosed the two insurance policies when he obtained the fire
insurance and thereby violated Condition 3 of the policy.

2. WON he is prohibited from recovering

Held: Yes. No. Petition Granted

persons or entities. It is undisputed that Wyeth is the recognized insured of Philippines First
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc vs Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc under its Marine Policy, while Reputable is the recognized insured of Malayan under the SR
G.R. No. 184300 July 11, 2012 Policy. The fact that Reputable procured Malayans SR Policy over the goods of Wyeth pursuant
merely to the stipulated requirement under its contract of carriage with the latter does not make
Facts: Since 1989, Wyeth Philippines, Inc. (Wyeth) and respondent Reputable Forwarder Reputable a mere agent of Wyeth in obtaining the said SR Policy.
Services, Inc. (Reputable) had been annually executing a contract of carriage, whereby the latter
undertook to transport and deliver the formers products to its customers, dealers or salesmen.
On November 18, 1993, Wyeth procured Marine Policy No. MAR 13797 (Marine Policy) from The interest of Wyeth over the property subject matter of both insurance contracts is also
respondent Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. (Philippines First) to secure its interest over its different and distinct from that of Reputables. The policy issued by Philippines First was in
own products. Philippines First thereby insured Wyeths nutritional, pharmaceutical and other consideration of the legal and/or equitable interest of Wyeth over its own goods. On the other
products usual or incidental to the insureds business while the same were being transported or hand, what was issued by Malayan to Reputable was over the latters insurable interest over the
shipped in the Philippines. The policy covers all risks of direct physical loss or damage from safety of the goods, which may become the basis of the latters liability in case of loss or damage
any external cause, if by land, and provides a limit of P6,000,000.00 per any one land vehicle. to the property and falls within the contemplation of Section 15 of the Insurance Code.
On December 1, 1993, Wyeth executed its annual contract of carriage with Reputable. It turned
out, however, that the contract was not signed by Wyeths representative/s. Nevertheless, it was Therefore, even though the two concerned insurance policies were issued over the same goods
admittedly signed by Reputables representatives, the terms thereof faithfully observed by the and cover the same risk, there arises no double insurance since they were issued to two different
parties and, as previously stated, the same contract of carriage had been annually executed by persons/entities having distinct insurable interests. Necessarily, over insurance by double
the parties every year since 1989. Under the contract, Reputable undertook to answer for all insurance cannot likewise exist. Hence, as correctly ruled by the RTC and CA, neither Section
risks with respect to the goods and shall be liable to the COMPANY (Wyeth), for the loss, 5 nor Section 12 of the SR Policy can be applied.
destruction, or damage of the goods/products due to any and all causes whatsoever, including
theft, robbery, flood, storm, earthquakes, lightning, and other force majeure while the
goods/products are in transit and until actual delivery to the customers, salesmen, and dealers of
the COMPANY. The contract also required Reputable to secure an insurance policy on
Wyeths goods. Thus, on February 11, 1994, Reputable signed a Special Risk Insurance Policy
(SR Policy) with petitioner Malayan for the amount of P1,000,000.00. On October 6, 1994,
during the effectivity of the Marine Policy and SR Policy, Reputable received from Wyeth 1,000
boxes of Promil infant formula worth P2,357,582.70 to be delivered by Reputable to Mercury
Drug Corporation in Libis, Quezon City. Unfortunately, on the same date, the truck carrying
Wyeths products was hijacked by about 10 armed men. They threatened to kill the truck driver
and two of his helpers should they refuse to turn over the truck and its contents to the said
highway robbers. The hijacked truck was recovered two weeks later without its cargo. Malayan
questions its liability based on sections 5 and 12 of the SR Policy.

Issue: Whether or not there is double insurance in this case such that either Section 5 or Section
12 of the SR Policy may be applied.

Held: No. By the express provision of Section 93 of the Insurance Code, double insurance exists
where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect to the same subject
and interest. The requisites in order for double insurance to arise are as follows:

1. The person insured is the same;

2. Two or more insurers insuring separately;
3. There is identity of subject matter;
4. There is identity of interest insured; and
5. There is identity of the risk or peril insured against.

In the present case, while it is true that the Marine Policy and the SR Policy were both issued
over the same subject matter, i.e. goods belonging to Wyeth, and both covered the same peril
insured against, it is, however, beyond cavil that the said policies were issued to two different