Ng Gan Zee vs Asian Crusader Life Insurance GR No. L-30685, ma 30, !

"83
#ac$s% On May 12, 1962, Kwong Nam applied for a 20-year endowment insurance on his life for the sum of 20,000!00, with his wife, appellee Ng "an #ee, as $eneficiary! On the same date, appellant, upon receipt of the re%uired premium from the insured, appro&ed the application and issued the corresponding policy! 'pon Kwong Nam(s death due to cancer of the li&er with metastasis, appellant denied the claim on the ground that the answers gi&en $y the insured to the %uestions appearing in his application for life insurance were untrue! )ppellant further maintains that when the insured was e*amined in connection with his application for life insurance, he ga&e the appellant(s medical e*aminer false and misleading information as to his aliment and pre&ious operation! )ppellant argues that the insured(s statement in his application that a tumor+ hard and of a hen(s egg si,e+ was remo&ed during said operation, constituted material concealment! Issue% -hether the insurance company, $ecause of the insured(s representation, was mislead or decei&ed into entering the contract! Ru&ing% No! .t $ears emphasis that Kwong Nam had informed the appellant(s medical e*aminer that the tumor for which he was operated on was /associated with ulcer of the stomach+ and in the a$sence of e&idence that the insured had sufficient medical 0nowledge as to ena$le him to distinguish $etween peptic ulcer and a tumor, his statement should $e construed as an e*pression made in good faith of his $elief as to the nature of his ailment and operation! 1hus, /concealment e*ists where the assured had 0nowledge of a fact material to the ris0, and honesty, good faith and fair dealing re%uires that he should communicate it to the assurer, $ut he designedly and intentionally withholds the same!+ .ndeed 0wong Nam(s statement must $e presumed to ha&e $een made $y him without 0nowledge of its incorrectness and without any deli$erate intent on his part to mislead the appellant! )lso, it has $een held that where, upon the face of the application, a %uestion appears to $e not answered at all or to $e imperfectly answered, and the insurer issued a policy without any further in%uiry, they wai&e the imperfection of the answer and render the omission to answer more fully immaterial!

2onifacio 2ros!, .nc!, et al! &s 3nri%ue Mora, et al! "4 No! 5-20678, May 29, 1969
#ac$s% 3nri%ue Mora, owner of an Oldsman sedan mortgaged the same to the :; 4eyes .nc! 1hereafter, the automo$ile was insured with the ;tate 2onding < .nsurance =o!, .nc with the pro&ision that >5oss, if any, is paya$le to :; 4eyes .nc!( $y &irtue of the fact that said Oldsman sedan was mortgaged in fa&or of the latter!

?uring the effecti&ity of the insurance contract, the car met with an accident! 3nri%ue Mora, without the 0nowledge and consent of :; 4eyes .nc! authori,ed 2onifacio 2ros! .nc! to furnish the la$or and materials and some of which were supplied $y the )yala )uto arts =o! roceeds of the insurance policy was not gi&en to 2onifacio 2ros! .nc! and )yala )uto arts =o!, hence, complaint was filed $efore Municipal =ourt of Manila against 3nri%ue Mora and the insurance company for the la$or and materials supplied! 1he appellants argued that they are pri&y to the contract! On the other hand, the insurance company maintains that appellants are not mentioned in the contract as parties thereto nor is there any clause or pro&ision from which it can $e inferred that there is an o$ligation on the part of the insurance company to pay the cost of repairs directly to them! Issue% -hether there is pri&ity of contract $etween the 2onifacio 2os! .nc and the )yala )uto arts =o! on the one hand and the insurance company on the other! Ru&ing% 1he appellants are not pri&y to the contract, hence, they ha&e no right of action against the insurance company! ) policy of insurance is a distinct and independent contract $etween the insured and insurer, and third persons ha&e no right either in a court of e%uity, or in a court of law, to the proceeds of it, unless there $e some contract of trust, e*pressed or implied, $y the insured and the third person! .t is fundamental that contracts ta0e effect only $etween the parties thereto, e*cept on some specific cases pro&ided $y law where the contract contains some stipulation in fa&or of a third person @)rt! 1811, =i&il =odeA ;uch stipulation is 0nown as stipulation pour autrui or a pro&ision in fa&or of a third person not party to the contract! .n the instant case, the insurance contract does not contain any words or clauses to disclose an intent to gi&e any $enefit to any repairmen or material men in case of repair of the car in %uestion! 1he /loss paya$le+ clause of the insurance policy stipulates that /5oss, if any, is paya$le to :; 4eyes, .nc+ indicating that it was only the :; 4eyes .nc! which they intended to $enefit!

'(e )(i&i**ine American Life Insurance Co. vs +on. Gregorio )ineda and ,ima uga G.R. No. 5-.!6. /u& !", !"8"
#ac$s% .n 1966, pri&ate respondent procured an ordinary life insurance policy from the petitioner company and designated his wife and children as irre&oca$le $eneficiaries of said policy! .n 1960, the petitioner su$se%uently filed a petition $efore the =B. of 4i,al to amend the designation of the $eneficiaries in his life policy from irre&oca$le to re&oca$le! 4espondent Cudge ineda allowed the pri&ate respondent to adduce e&idence! 1he argumen$ of the petitioner is the designation of the $eneficiaries in the policy has $een made without reser&ing the right to change said $eneficiaryD$eneficiaries, such designation may not $e surrendered to the =ompany, released or assignedE and no right or pri&ilege under the olicy may $e e*ercised, or agreement made with the =ompany to any change in or amendment to the olicy, without the consent of the said $eneficiaryD$eneficiaries! On the other hand, the pri&ate respondent contends that said designation can $e amended if the =ourt finds a Fust, reasona$le ground to do so! Issue%

-hether the designation of the irre&oca$le $eneficiaries could $e changed or amended without the consent of all the irre&oca$le $eneficiaries! Ru&ing% No! 1he applica$le law in the instant case is the .nsurance )ct, otherwise 0nown as )ct No! 2G29 as amended, the policy ha&ing $een procured in 1966! 'nder the said law, the $eneficiary designated in a life insurance contract cannot $e changed without the consent of the $eneficiary $ecause he has a &ested interest in the policy (Gercio v. Sun Life Ins. Co. of Canada, 48 Phil. 53; Go v. edfern and the International !ssurance Co., Ltd., "# Phil. "$%. 1he 2eneficiary ?esignation .ndorsement in the policy of the respondent states that the designation of the $eneficiaries is irre&oca$le, hence,$oth the law and the policy do not pro&ide for any other e*ception! ;uch fact was not dispro&ed $y the respondent! 1he contract $etween the parties is the law $inding on $oth of them and for so many times, this court has consistently issued pronouncements upholding the &alidity and effecti&ity of contracts! -here there is nothing in the contract which is contrary to law, good morals, good customs, pu$lic policy or pu$lic order the &alidity of the contract must $e sustained! 5i0ewise, contracts which are the pri&ate laws of the contracting parties should $e fulfilled according to the literal sense of their stipulations, if their terms are clear and lea&e no room for dou$t as to the intention of the contracting parties, for contracts are o$ligatory, no matter in what form they may $e, whene&er the essential re%uisites for their &alidity are present (Phoeni& !ssurance Co., Ltd. vs. 'nited States Lines, ## SC ! ("5, Phil. !)erican General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. *utuc, ($ SC ! ##.%

0a&a an Insurance Co., Inc 10IC23 vs Gregoria Cru4 Arna&do and Coronacion )inca G.R. No. 65835. 2c$o6er !., !"85
#ac$s% On Cune 9, 1961, petitioner M.=O issued to the pri&ate respondent, =oronacion inca, Bire .nsurance olicy on her property effecti&e Culy 22, 1961 until Culy 22, 1962! On Octo$er 17, 1961, M.=O allegedly cancelled the policy for non-payment of the premium and sent the corresponding notice to inca! On ?ecem$er 2G, 1961, payment of the premium for inca was recei&ed $y ?omingo )dora, agent of M.=O! On Canuary 17, 1962, )dora remitted this payment to M.=O, together with other payments! On Canuary 16, 1962, inca(s property was completely $urned! On Be$ruary 7, 1962, inca(s payment was returned $y M.=O to )dora on the ground that her policy had $een cancelled earlier $ut )dora refused to accept! inca made demands for payment $ut M.=O reFected! ;uch demand was sustained $y the respondent .nsurance =ommission, hence this petition! 1he petitioner argues that there was no payment of premium and that the policy had $een cancelled $efore the occurrence of the loss! )lso, )dora was not authori,ed to accept the premium payment $ecause si* months had elapsed since the issuance of the insurance policy and such acceptance was prohi$ited $y the policy itself! .t is also argued that this prohi$ition was $inding upon inca, who made the payment to )dora at her own ris0 as she was $ound to first chec0 his authority to recei&e it! Issue% -hether there e*ists an insurance contract at the time of the loss sustained $y inca! Ru&ing% Hes! 1here e*ists a &alid contract of insurance!

ayment of premium was in fact made, rendering the policy effecti&e as of Cune 22, 1961, and remo&ing it from the pro&isions of ;ec 99!- )n insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing is e*posed to the peril insured against! Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no *o&ic or con$rac$ of insurance issued 6 an insurance com*an is va&id and 6inding un&ess and un$i& $(e *remium $(ereof (as 6een *aid, e7ce*$ in $(e case of a &ife or an indus$ria& &ife *o&ic 8(enever $(e grace *eriod *rovision a**&ies. )s to the claim of M.=O that it cancelled the policy in %uestion on Octo$er 17, 1961, for non-payment of premium, there is a flat denial of inca that she ne&er recei&ed the claimed cancellation and who, of course, did not ha&e to pro&e such denial considering the strict language of ;ection 6G of the .nsurance 5aw that no insurance policy shall $e cancelled e*cept upon prior notice! M.=O has the $urden in ma0ing sure that the cancellation was actually sent to and recei&ed $y the insured! )dora, incidentally, had not $een informed of the cancellation either and saw no reason not to accept the said payment! )s to the authority of )dora to recei&e payment, / ayment to an agent ha&ing the authority to recei&e or collect payment is e%ui&alent to payment to the principal himselfE such payment is complete when the money deli&ered is into the agent(s hand and is a discharge of the inde$tedness owing to the principal+ etition denied! 1he decision of the .nsurance =ommission affirmed!