(1) Insurance Case Digest: Heirs Of Loreto C. Maramag V
He referred to her as
Maramag (2009)
G.R. No. 181132 June 5, 2009
Lessons Applicable: To whom insurance proceeds payable
(Insurance)
FACTS:
 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 policy.
 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
(2) Insular v Ebrado G.R. No. L-44059 October 28, 1977
Facts:
Cristor Ebrado was issued by The Life Assurance Co., Ltd., a
policy for P5,882.00 with a rider for Accidental Death. He
designated Carponia T. Ebrado as the
revocable beneficiary in his policy.
his wife.
Cristor was killed when he was hit by a failing branch of a
tree. Insular Life was made liable to pay the coverage in
the total amount of P11,745.73, representing the face
value of the policy in the amount of P5,882.00 plus
the additional benefits for accidental death.
Carponia T. Ebrado filed with the insurer a claim for the
proceeds as the designated beneficiary therein, although
she admited that she and the insured were merely living
as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
Pascuala Vda. de Ebrado also filed her claim as the widow
of the deceased insured. She asserts that she is the one
entitled to the insurance proceeds.
Insular commenced an action for Interpleader before the
trial court as to who should be given the proceeds. The
court declared Carponia as disqualified.
Issue: WON a common-law wife named as beneficiary in
the life insurance policy of a legally married man can claim
the proceeds in case of death of the latter?
Held: No. Petition
Section 50 of the Insurance Act which provides that "the
insurance shall be applied exclusively to the proper
interest of the person in whose name it is made"
The word "interest" highly suggests that the provision
refers only to the "insured" and not to the beneficiary,
since a contract of insurance is personal in character.
Otherwise, the prohibitory laws against illicit relationships
especially on property and descent will be rendered
nugatory, as the same could easily be circumvented by
modes of insurance.
When not otherwise specifically provided for by the
Insurance Law, the contract of life insurance is governed
by the general rules of the civil law regulating contracts.
And under Article 2012 of the same Code, any person who
is forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739
cannot be named beneficiary of a fife insurance policy by
the person who cannot make a donation to him. Common-
law spouses are barred from receiving donations from
each other.
Article 739 provides that void donations are those made
between persons who were guilty of adultery or
concubinage at the time of donation.
There is every reason to hold that the bar in donations
between legitimate spouses and those between
illegitimate ones should be enforced in life insurance
policies since the same are based on similar consideration.
So long as marriage remains the threshold of family laws,
reason and morality dictate that the impediments imposed
upon married couple should likewise be imposed upon
extra-marital relationship.
A conviction for adultery or concubinage isn’t required
exacted before the disabilities mentioned in Article 739
may effectuate. The article says that in the case referred to
in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be
brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the
guilty of the donee may be proved by preponderance of
evidence in the same action.
The underscored clause neatly conveys that no criminal
conviction for the offense is a condition precedent. The
law plainly states that the guilt of the party may be proved
“in the same acting for declaration of nullity of donation.”
And, it would be sufficient if evidence preponderates.
The insured was married to Pascuala Ebrado with whom
she has six legitimate children. He was also living in with
his common-law wife with whom he has two children.
(s) Insular Life vs. Ebrado; 80 SCRA 181
Facts:
> Buenaventura Ebrado was issued al life plan by Insular
Company. He designated Capriona as his beneficiary,
referring to her as his wife.
> The insured then died and Carponia tried to claim the
proceeds of the said plan.
> She admitted to being only the common law wife of the
insured.
> Pascuala, the legal wife, also filed a claim asserting her
right as the legal wife. The company then filed an action
for interpleader.
Issue: Whether or not the common law wife named as
beneficiary can collect the proceeds.
Held: NO. The civil code prohibitions on donations made
between persons guilty of adulterous concubinage
applies to insurance contracts. On matters not
specifically provided for by the Insurance Law, the
general rules on Civil law shall apply. A life insurance
policy is no different from a civil donation as far as the
beneficiary is concerned, since both are founded on
liberality.
Why was the common law wife not ed to collect the
proceeds despite the fact that she was the beneficiary?
Isn’t this against Sec. 53?
It is true that SC went against Sec. 53. However, Sec. 53 is
NOT the only provision that the SC had to consider. Art.
739 and 2012 of CC prohibit persons who are guilty of
adultery or concubinage from being beneficiaries of the
life insurance policies of the persons with whom they
committed adultery or concubinage. If the SC used only
Sec. 53, it would have gone against Art. 739 and 2012.
(3)Del Val v Del Val G.R. No. L-9374 February 16, 1915
Fatcs:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila dismissing the complaint
with costs.
The parties are siblings who were the only heirs at law and
next of kin of Gregorio del Val, who passed away intestate.
An administrator was appointed for the estate of the
deceased, and, after a partial administration, it was closed.
During the lifetime of the deceased he took out insurance
on his life for the sum of P40,000 and made it payable to
Andres del Val as sole beneficiary. After his death,
the defendant Andres collected the face of the policy. He
paid the sum of P18,365.20 to redeem certain real estate
which the decedent had sold to third persons with a right
to repurchase. The redemption of said premises was made
by the attorney of the defendant in the name of the
plaintiff and the defendant as heirs of the deceased
vendor. Andres, on death of the deceased, took possession
of most of his personal property and that he has also the
balance on the insurance policy amounting to P21,634.80.
Plaintiffs contend that the amount of the insurance policy
belonged to the estate of the deceased and not to
the defendantpersonally, hence they are entitled to a
partition not only of the real and personal property, but
also of the P40,000 life insurance. The complaint prays a
partition of all the property, both real and personal, left by
the deceased, and that the defendant account for
P21,634.80. They also wanted to divide this equally among
the plaintiffs and defendant along with the other property
of deceased.
The defendant’s claim was that redemption of the real
estate sold by his father was made in the name of the
plaintiffs and himself instead of in his name alone without
his knowledge or consent. He also averred that it was not
his intention to use the proceeds of the insurance policy
for the benefit of any person but himself, he alleging that
he was and is the sole owner thereof and that it is his
individual property
The trial court refused to give relief to either party and
dismissed the action due to the argument that the action
for partition failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Code
sec. 183, in that it does not 'contain an adequate
description of the real property of which partition is
demanded.'
Issue: Can the proceeds of the policy be divided among the
heirs?
Held: No. Petition dismissed.
The proceeds of the life-insurance policy belong
exclusively to the defendant as his individual and separate
property. That the proceeds of an insurance policy belong
exclusively to the beneficiary and not to the estate of the
person whose life was insured, and that such proceeds are
the separate and individual property of the beneficiary,
and not of the heirs of the person whose life was insured,
is the doctrine in America. The doctrine is embedded in
the Code of Commerce where:
“The amount which the underwriter must deliver to the
person insured, in fulfillment of the contract, shall be the
property of the latter, even against the claims of the
legitimate heirs or creditors of any kind whatsoever of the
person who effected the insurance in favor of the former.”
The plaintiffs invoked Article 1035 of the Civil Code, where
it reads:
“An heir by force of law surviving with others of the same
character to a succession must bring into the hereditary
estate the property or securities he may have received
from the deceased during the life of the same, by way of
dowry, gift, or for any good consideration, in order to
compute it in fixing the legal portions and in the account of
the division.”
They also invoked Article 819. This article provides that
"gifts made to children which are not betterments shall be
considered as part of their legal portion."
The court didn’t agree because the contract of life
insurance is a special contract and the destination of the
proceeds is determined by special laws which deal
exclusively with that subject. The Civil Code has no
provisions which relate directly and specifically to life-
insurance contracts or to the destination of life insurance
proceeds. That was under the Code of Commerce.
The plaintiffs claim that the property repurchased with the
insurance proceeds belongs to the heirs in common and
not to the defendant alone. This wasn’t agreed upon by
the court unless the facts appeared that Andres acted as
he did with the intention that the other heirs should enjoy
with him the ownership of the estate.
HELD: YES. judgment appealed from is set aside and the
cause returned to the CFI
 agree with the CFI proceeds of an insurance
policy belong exclusively to the beneficiary
 The contract of life insurance is a special contract
and the destination of the proceeds thereof is
determined by special laws which deal
exclusively with that subject. The Civil Code has
no provisions which relate directly and
specifically to life- insurance contracts or to the
destination of life insurance proceeds.
 CA not inclined to agree with this contention
unless the fact appear or be shown that the
defendant acted as he did with the intention to
make a gift of the real estate to the other heirs.
 CA not inclined to agree with this contention unless
the fact appear or be shown that the defendant acted
as he did with the intention to make a gift of the real
estate to the other heirs.

(s) G.R. No. L-9374 February 16, 1915

Lessons Applicable: Estate (Insurance)
FACTS:
 Gregorio Nacianceno del Val had a life insurance
of P40,000 naming as sole beneficiary his
brother Andres Del Val who used the insurance
money to repurchase his estate for P18,365.20
and keeping the balance of the insurance
of P21,634.80 he also did the same to the
personal properties in his possesion
 Francisco Del Val, Et Al., brothers and sisters,
contended that the insurance claim as well as
the personal properties should be given to the
estate and not to Andres.
 Andres: It was his fathers who sold the
property named with his brothers and
sisters without his consent. Claims
that the insurance is solely his.
 Trial Court: dismissed the action stating that it is
an action for partition between co-heirs The
complaint, however, fails to comply with Code
Civ., Pro. sec. 183, in that it does not 'contain an
adequate description of the real property of
which partition is demanded. Since the estate
was finally closed. the matter of the personal
property at least must be considered res
judicata.

ISSUE: W/N the Andres as sole beneficiary should have

exclusive right to the insurance claim.