G.R. No. L-5642 February 25, 1954 HERMINIA Q. KANAPI, Pla !" ##-A$$ella!", %&.

'HE IN()LAR LIFE A(()RAN*E *+., L',., ,e#e!-a!"-A$$ellee. FACTS: Defendant insurance company issued a policy on the life of plaintiff's husband, Henry G. anapi, !hereby defendant undertoo" to pay to plaintiff as beneficiary, upon the death of the insured, the sum of #$,%%% if the death be due to natural causes and an additional #$,%%% if the death be due to accidental means, under the Accidental Death &enefit #olicy Clause. Ho!e'er, it !as pro'ided that liability !ill not attach if death resulted from in(ury intentionally inflicted by a third party. Durin) the life of the policy, the insured died from a bullet !ound inflicted, !ithout pro'ocation, by one Conrado *uemosin), !ho, as author of the "illin), !as found )uilty of murder and sentenced to prison. The insurer denied liability alle)in) that the Accidental Death &enefit #olicy Clause did not apply. The lo!er court ruled a)ainst the plaintiff. +SS,-: .hether or not plaintiff is entitled to claim the additional benefits under the accident benefit clause of the policy. /,0+1G: 1o. This clause pro'ide for the payment of the sum upon proof 2that the death of the +nsured resulted directly from bodily in(ury affected throu)h e3ternal and 'iolent means sustained in an accident . . . and independently of all other clauses.2 &ut far from pro'in) that the insured died from bodily in(ury sustained in an accident, the a)reed facts are to the effect that the insured !as murdered, thus ma"in) it indisputable that his death resulted from in(ury 2intentionally inflicted by a third party24 !hich is one of the e3ceptions to the accident benefit clause, accordin) to !hich the benefit shall not apply to death resultin) from 25$6 Any in(ury recei'ed . . . 5e6 that has been inflicted intentionally by a third party, either !ith or !ithout pro'ocation on the part of the +nsured, and !hether or not the attac" or the defense by the third party !as caused by a 'iolation of the la! by the +nsured. . . .2 There is nothin) to the su))estion that the case comes under e3ception $ 5d6 or that portion of it !hich e3cepts from the benefit any in(ury recei'ed 2in any assault pro'o"ed by the +nsured2, it bein) ar)ued that by e3press mention of pro'o"ed assault an unpro'o"ed one is inferentially e3cluded. The inference is not admissible because !here the in(ury is inflicted !ithout pro'ocation the case comes !ithin the terms of e3ception $ 5e6, !hich, is, therefore, the one that should be applied.