1.Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Phil.
American o Lease contract stipulation: lessee X insure
Life Insurance Co.
• Petitioner: Eternal Garden
• Defendant: Philamlife
• Facts
o Agreement between parties – insurance by
Philamlife on clients of eternal who purchased
burial lots on installment
o John Chuang died – Eternal sent insurance claim
– Philam accepted letter
o Philam – denied claim; no application sent prior
to death
• Stamp of receipt – effect of acknowledging receipt of the
letter together with the attachments
• Valid insurance coverage
o Insurance contract of adhesion – construed
liberally in favor of insured, strictly against insurer
2. Philamcare Health Systems, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
• Ernani Trinos – deceased husband of respondent Julita
Trinos
• Petitioner: Philamcare Health Systems
• Facts:
o Health care coverage
o Answered no to having been treater for High BP,
heart trouble, diabetes, cancer, liver disease,
asthma or peptic ulcer
o Ernani suffered heart attack
o Petitioner denied claim – at time of confinement
Ernani was hypertensive, diabetic and asthmatic
– concealment
• Healthcare agreement – Contract of insurance!
• Health-care agreement in the nature of non-life insurance,
which is primarily a contract of indemnity
• Once the member incurs hospital, medical expense arising
from sickness, injury or other contingent – health care
provider must pay for the same
• Concealment – medical history largely depends on opinion
rather than fact – especially coming from a non-doctor
o Where matters of opinion or judgment are called
for, answers made in GF and without intent to
deceive will not avoid policy even if untrue
• Fraudulent intent must be established to warrant rescission
3. Asian Terminals, Inc. v. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corp.
• COSCO – shipowner
• GASI – consignee (grann Asian sales Inc)
• FIRST LEPANTO – insurer
• PROVEN – broker
• ATI – arrastre
• Facts
o 3K bags od sodium tri-poly-phosphate loaded
into a carrier owner by COCO in favor of GASI
o Insured against all risks with First Lepanto for 8M
o Arrived in manila and was discharged into the
custody of ATI
o Withdrawn by broker PROVEN for delivery to
consignee
o Shortage amounting to 160K
• Non-presentation of insurance contract is not fatal to
Lepanto’s cause of action for reimbursement as subrogee
• Right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the
insurance company of the insurance complain
• Subrogation receipt by itself sufficient to establish
relationship between insurer and consignee and amount
paid to settle insurance claim
• ATI’s liability established by long interval between its
receipt of shipment and issuance of Bad Order Survey of
Bad Cargo
4. Cha vs. Court of Appeals
• Sps. Cha – lessee
• CKS Dev’t Corp – lessor
• Facts:
against fire the chattels, merchandise, etc.
placed at any stall or store in the leased
premised without first obtaining consent from
lessor
o Lessee insured merchandise against loss by fire
with United Insurance Co.
o Fire broke out
• Stipuation void – Insurable interest in the property must
exist @ time the insurance takes effect and loss occurs
• CKS had no insurable interest in the goods and
merchandise
5. Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North
America
• IMCI – maker of Wrangler Blue Jeans
• LSPI – distributor of Levi Strauss
• Insurance Company of North America – respondent
• Gaisano Cagayan – petitioner
• Facts
o IMC and LCPI obtained insurance from
respondent fire insurance policies with book debt
endorsements – coverage on BOOK DEBTS IN
CONNECTION WITH READY MADE CLOTHING
MATERIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD TO OR
DELIVERED TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS AND
DEALRES OF INSURED ANYWHERE IN PH
o Gaisano Superstore consumed by fire
§ Lost and destroyed items of IMC and
LSPI
• What were insured against were the accounts of IMC and
LSPI and not the loss or destruction of the goods
• Gaisano bears the loss – when the seller retains ownership
only to insure that the buyer will pay its debt – risk od loss
borne by buyer
• Payment of money – generic; genus of a thing can never
perish
• Respondent failed to substantiate claims of LSPI
6. Sun Life of Canada [Philippines], Inc. vs. Sibya,
• Jesus Sibya – insured
• Beneficiaries – respondents
• Facts
o Sibya applied for life insurance
o Indicated he sought advice for kidney problems,
lithotripsy due to kidney stones
o Died as a result of GSW
o Sun life denied claim – medical history not
disclosed
• After the 2 year period lapses or when the insured dies
within the period, insurer must make good on the policy
even though the policy was obtained by fraud,
concealment or misrepresentation
• No misrepresentation – honest opinion
7. Geagonia vs. Court of Appeals
• Geogonia – petitioner
o Owner – Norman’s Mart, Agusan Del Sur
• Country Bankers – private respondent
• Mercantile – co insurer
• Facts
o Petitioner & PR – fire insurance policy – 100K –
covering its dry goods (RTW)
o Declared co-insurer
o Condition #3 – inonotify ni insured yung
company of iba pang insurance before
occurrence of any loss otherwise forfeited yung
policy pero di na kailaiangan if insurance at time
of loss is 200k or less
o Fire broke out
o PR denied insurance claim – petitioners stocks in
trade covered by 2 other insurances (PFIC)
o Mortgage clause: Loss payable to Cebu Tesing
Textiles
 • Mortgagor and mortgagee – independent insurable interest
– PFIC clause SIMPLE LOSS PAYABLE CLAUSE not
standard maortgage clause
• Condition 3 applies only to double insurance
• Since different insurable interests – no double insurance
8. The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Paz Y. Khu
• Felipe Khu – insured
• Facts
o Felipe applied for reinstatement of policy
o “following changes are made on the policy
effective June 22, 1999”
o September 22, 2001 – Felipe died
o Insular life denied insurance policy on the
grounds of concealment
o Insular life: extra premium was only paid on Dec.
27, 1999
• Policy was reinstated on June 22, 1999 – incontestable
• Obscurity of language – construction favorable to insured
9. Vda. de Maglana vs. Hon. Consolacion
• Lope Maglana – ee of Bureau of Customs
• AFISCO – insurer
• Facts
o Maglana, driving a motorcycle, met an accident
and died
o Jeepney operated by Destrajo running abreast
bumped the motorcycle
o Destrajo did not exercise sufficient diligence as
the operation; Afisco is ordered to reimburse
Destrajo whaterver amounts the shall have paid
only up to the extent of the insurance
• Afisco can be held directly liable – policy says “the
company will, in respect of the liability incurred to such
person, indemnify his personal representatives…”
• But it cannot be held solidarily liable – Liability of insurer to
third party is based on contract
10. Tiu vs. Arriesgado
• Pedro & Felisa Arriesgado – passengers D’ Rough Riders
• William Tiu – bus operator
• PPSI – respondent; Tiu’s insurer
• Laspiñas – driver of bus
• Condor Hollow Blocks and Gen Merchandise – cargo truck
• Facts:
o One of rear tires of cargo truck exploded –
parked along the right side of national highway –
placed a spare tire six fathoms away behind the
stalled truck to serve as warning – tail lights left
on
o D’ Rough Riders passenger bus cruising alone
the national highway, Laspinas saw the stalled
truck 25 meters away, applied brakes – Bus
rammed into trucks left rear
o Pedro lost consciousness; Felisa died
• Tiu liable – common carrier; maximum speed allowed
30km/hr he drove @ 50 – breach of contract of carriage
• PPSI and Tiu – jointly and severally liable to pay William Tiu
13.1K
• Victim may proceed directly against the insurer only up to
the extent of the insurance policy and those required by
law
11. Prudential Guarantee vs. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc.
• M/V Asia Korea – vessel
• Prudential – insurer
• Trans-asia – shipowner
• Facts:
o Prudential insured M/V Asia Korea for
loss/damage of the hull and machinery arising
from perils – for 40M
o Fire broke out
o Prudential denied claim – there was a breach in
conditions – “warranted vessel classed and class
maintained”
• Prudential was not able to support the allegation that
Transasia violated the warranty
• Even if it were violated, Prudential renewed policy for 2
consecutive years – renewal is deemed waiver of any
breach of warranty
• Prudential renewed policy despite of non-certification that
it was classed and classed-maintained
• Loan agreement was a contract of subrogation
12. Roque vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
• Mania bay – common carrier
• Roque – petitioner
• Pioneer – insurer, respondent
• Facts:
o Manila bay – carried on board its barge (Mable
10) petitioner’s 811 logs – insured logs with
Pioneer for 100k
o Mable 10 sank
o Pioneer refused to pay – liability depended upon
the total loss by total loss of vessel only
• Implied seaworthiness of cargo – immediately attaches to
whoever is insuring the cargo – shipper of cargo may have
no control over the vessel but he has full control in the
choice of the common carrier that will transport his goods
• Loss of cargo was due to perils of the ship – negates
petitioner’s claim under the insurance policy
o No barratry also; there was only simple
negligence or lack of skill
13. American Home Assurance Company vs. Chua
• Chua – owner of Moonlight Enterprises
• James Uy – agent of American Home Assurance (insurer)
• Facts
o Chua obtained a fire insurance covering the
stock in trade of Moonlight
o He issued a check to James Uy as payment of
renewal of policy
o Moonlight razed by fire
o American home denied claim – no existing
insurance contract; Chua did not pay the
premium because the check was not yet cleared
at the time of the fire; Chua violated the policy –
other insurance clause
• There was valid payment of premium – acknowledgment in
a policy of receipt of premium is conclusive evidence of
payment
• Even if other insurance clause was violated, American
Home estopped because loss adjuster knowledgeable of
other co-insurers
• No damages – no fraud or BF
14. Lourdes v. Philam Plans
• Florendo – Insured
• Abcede – Insurance agent
• Philam plans – insurer
• Facts
o Florendo filed an application for comprehensive
pension plan – he left Abcede to accomplish the
application
o Floredo died of blood poisoning 11 months after
o Philam denied the insurance claim because of
concealment – Florendo was taking maintenance
medicine for his heart and had an implant
pacemaker
• Guilty of concealment – Abcede’s accomplishment of form
no merit – Florendo’s signing signified his representation
that all information indicated is true
• Florendo bound by the act of his signing of document
• Florendo died 11 months after – Philam was not yet
precluded from questioning the policy