1. REGINA L.

EDILLON, as assisted by her husband,MARCIAL EDILLON

, petitioners-appellants,
vs
MANILABANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF
RIZAL, BRANCH V,QUEZON CITY
, respondents-appellees.

1. Edillon vs Manila Banker’s Life Ins.

Facts: Carmen Lapuz, the sister of Petitioner Edillon, applied for insurance coverage against accident and injuries with
respondent Manila Bankers Life Insurance.

In her application dated April 15, 1969, she gave the date of her birth as July 11, 1904. She paid the premium and the
insurer issued the policy. The policy, however, excluded liability to persons who are under 16 years of age or over the
age of 60. During the existence of the policy, Lapuz died in a vehicular accident. The petitioner Regina Edillon, as
sister of the insured and the beneficiary in the policy, filed her claim for the proceeds of the insurance. However, Manila
Banker’s refused to pay on the ground that the deceased Carmen Lapuz was more than 60 years old at the time the policy
was issued.

Issue: Was the refusal of Manila Banker’s to pay the proceeds correct?

Held : The refusal of the insurer to pay was not correct because it was barred by estoppel from claiming forfeiture of
the policy. Carmen Lapuz indicated in her application that she was 65 years of age by stating her date of birth and yet the
insurer accepted payment of premium and issued the policy.
2. Philam Healthcare System, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, Julita Trinos.

Ernani Trinos, is the deceased husband of respondent Julita Trinos.

During his lifetime, he applied for health care coverage with petitioner Philamcare.

In his application, Trinos answered "no" to the question whether he or any of his family members ever consulted
or been treated for high blood pressure, heart trouble, diabetes, cancer, liver disease, asthma or peptic ulcer.

The application was approved for a period of one year and under the agreement, Trinos was entitled to avail of
hospitalization benefits.

Upon termination, the same was extended to another year with an increased amount of coverage.

During the period of the coverage, Trinos suffered heart attack and was confined at the Manila Medical Center hospital
for one month. While Trinos was still in the hospital, respondent wife Julita Trinos tried to claim the benefit under the
health care coverage, however, was denied by the insurer on the ground of concealment.

The insurer did not rescind the contract despite its claim of concealment. Thereafter, a month later, Trinos died.

Respondent wife Julita Trinos filed an action against the insurer without the insurance being rescinded.

Issue: May the insurer still rescind the contract? NO.

According to the Supreme Court, concealment, generally, gives the injured party the right to rescind the contract. Such
right of rescission however, must be exercised previous to the commencement of an action on the contract.

In this case at bar, no rescission was made by petitioner Philam Care before the action was filed and therefore the insurer
may no longer rescind the contract.
PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and ORIENTAL
ASSURANCECORPORATION, respondents.

3. Pacific Banking Corp vs Court of Appeals_____________

Paramount Shirt Manufacturing Co borrowed money from petitioner Pacific Banking Corporation. To secure the
loan, Paramount Shirt mortgaged its properties and assigned the fire insurance policy issued by respondent Oriental
Assurance covering said properties to Pacific Banking.

Paramount Shirt, however, violated a condition in the policy which requires a full disclosure of all insurance policies on
the same properties insured with respondent Oriental Assurance.

While the aforesaid policy was in full force and effect, a fire broke out and the insured properties were burned.

Given this, Pacific Banking demanded payment from the respondent Oriental Assurance.

Oriental refused to pay on the ground of violation of the policy by the insured.

Petitioner Pacific Banking claimed that the Paramount Shirt’s violation of the policy can not affect the
mortgagee/assignee because the purpose for which the endorsement or assignment of the policy was made was to protect
the mortgagee/assignee against any untoward act or omission of the insured and it would be absurd to bar the
mortgagee/assignee from recovery on account of violation of the policy committed by the insured.

Issue: Was the contention of Pacific Banking correct, thus he may collect from the assurance company?

No, Pacific Banking's contention was not Correct.

It is not disputed that the insured failed to reveal before the loss three other insurances. As found by the Court of Appeals,
by reason of said unrevealed insurances, the insured had been guilty of a false declaration; a clear misrepresentation and a
vital one because where the insured had been asked to reveal but did not, that was deception. Otherwise stated, had the
insurer known that there were many co-insurances, it could have hesitated or plainly desisted from entering into such
contract. Hence, the insured was guilty of clear fraud

Where the insured who was primarily entitled to receive the proceeds of the policy had by his fraud and/or
misrepresentation, forfeited said right, with more reason, Pacific Banking which was merely claiming as indorsee of said
insured, cannot be entitled to such proceeds.
4. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs . CRESENCIA P. ABAN, respondent

Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. vs Aban

Facts: On July 3, 1993 Delia Sotero took out a life insurance policy from Manila Bankers Life Insurance designating
respondent Cresencia Aban, her niece, as beneficiary.

On April 10, 1996 when the insurance policy had been in force for more than two years and seven months, Sotero
died.

The beneficiary filed a claim with the insurer. The insurer conducted an investigation and found out that:

(1) Sotero did not personally apply for insurance coverage

(2) Sotero was sickly since 1990,;
(3) Sotero is not financially capable to pay the insuranc premiums
(4) Sotero did not sign the July 3, 1993 application for insurance
(5) Repondent Aban was the one who filed the insurance application

Given this, Manila bankers alleged that Sotero fraudulently obtained the policy thus they denied the claim.

Thereafter, on April 24, 1997, Manila Bankers filed an action to rescind the policy.

Issue: May the policy be rescinded?

Held: The insurer cannot rescind the contract of insurance.

"An insurer is given two years — from the effectivity of a life insurance contract and while the insurer is alive to
discover or prove that the policy is void ab initio or is rescindable by reason of the fraudulent concealment or
misrepresentation of the insured or his agent.

After the two-year period lapses, or when the insured dies within the period, the insurer must make good on the
policy, even though the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation. This is not to say that
insurance fraud must be rewarded, but that insurers who recklessly and indiscriminately solicit and obtain business must
be penalized, for such recklessness and lack of discrimination ultimately work to the detriment of bona fide takers of
insurance and the public in general
SUN LIFE OF CANADA (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner,

vs. MA. DAISY S. SIBYA, JESUS MANUEL S. SIBYA III, JAIME LUIS S. SIBYA, and THE ESTATE OF
THEDECEASED ATTY. JESUS SIBYA, JR., respondents.

5.) Sun Life of Canada (phils ) Inc. Vs Sibya

Atty. Jesus Sibya, Jr. applied for life insurance with petitioner Sun Life. He indicated in his application that he had sought advice for
kidney problems.

That In 1987 he had undergone lithoripsy due to kidney stone under Dr. Jesus Benjamin Mendoza at National Kidney Transplant
Institute, discharged after 3 days, no recurrence as claimed."

On February 5, 2001, Sun Life approved Sibya's application and issued the life insurance policy.

On May Il, 2001, or 3 months later after the policy was issued, Sibya died of gunshot wound.

Herein respondent Daisy Sibya, the widow of deceased Atty. Sibya, filed a claim for the proceeds of the policy.

However, Sun Life denied the claim and instead sthey filed an action to rescind the policy on the ground of concealment.

Sun Life claimed that Sibya did not disclose his previous medical treatment at the National Kidney in May and August 1994.

Issue: May Sun Life of Canada rescind the life insurance contract after the death of the isnured?

RULING: The Supreme Court held in the NEGATIVE

The Supreme court citing the case of Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation vs Aban Ruled that:

“After the two-year period lapses, or when the insured dies within the period, the insurer must make good on
the policy, even though the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation”

In the present case, Sun Life issued Atty. Jesus Jr.’spolicy on February 5, 2001. Thus, it has two years from its issuance, to investigate
and verify whether the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation. Upon the death of Atty. Jesus Jr., however,
on May 11, 2001, or a mere three months from the issuance of the policy, Sun Life loses its right to rescind the policy.
EMILIO TAN, JUANITO TAN, ALBERTO TAN and ARTURO TAN, petitioners,
vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondents.

6. Tan vs Court Appeals

On September 23, 1973, Tan lee Siong, the father of herein petitioners, applied for a life insurance with respondent Phil-
Am Life.

On November 6, 1973, the Philam Life issued a life insurance policy amounting to P80,OOO in favor of Tan Lee Siong

However, on April 26, 1975, Tan Lee Siong died of hepatoma. The petitioners who are the beneficiaries demanded
payment but on September 11, 1975, through a letter sent to the petitioners, denied the claim and rescinded the policy by
reason of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts made by the Tan Lee Siong in his application for insurance.

The petitioners maintained that the insurer can no longer rescind the policy after the death of the insured. They
also claimed that rescission must be done during the lifetime of the insured, within two years and prior to the
commencement of the action.

Issue: Are the contentions of the beneficiaries correct?

The contentions are without merit. The insurer has two years from the date of issuance of the insurance contract or of its
last reinstatement within which to contest the policy, whether or not the insured still lives within such period. From
November 6, 1973 when the policy was issued to April 26, 1975 when the insured died, less than two years had elapsed
and hence the policy was not yet incontestable.