Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Ignacio Saturnino vs Philippine American Life Insurance Company

Facts: Deceased Estefania Saturnino contracted a 20-year endowment non-


medical life insurance with appellee. This kind of policy dispenses with the
medical examination of the applicant. However, detailed information is called for
in the application concerning the applicant’s health and medical history. The
written application was submitted by Estefania herself as witnessed by appellee’s
agent. The policy was issued on the same day. Thereafter, Saturnino died. Her
surviving spouse and minor child, appellants herein, subsequently demanded
payment of the face value of the policy. The same was rejected and this case was
filed before the RTC.

It appears that months prior to issuance of the policy, the deceased was
operated on for cancer, notwithstanding such fact, Saturnino did not make a
disclosure thereof in her application. On the contrary, she stated therein that she
did not have, nor had she ever had among other ailments listed in the application,
cancer or other tumors; nor undergone any operation.

Issue: WON Saturnino is entitled to the insurance claim

Held: No. Under the law, each party to a contract of insurance is bound to
communicate to the other, in good faith, all facts within his knowledge which are
material to the contract, and to which he makes no warranty, and which the other
has not the means of ascertaining.

In the instant case, there can be no dispute that the information given by
her in her application was false, namely, that she had never cancer or tumors or
undergone any operation in the preceding five years. It is evident that she is guilty
of concealment.

As to petitioner’s contention that since the contract was a non-medical


insurance, concealment of her previous health conditions were not material is
without merit. Because if anything, the waiver of medical examination renders
even more material the information required of the applicant concerning previous
conditions of health and diseases suffered, for such information necessarily
constitutes an important factor which the insurer takes into consideration in
deciding whether to issue the policy or not. It is logical to assume that if the
appellee had been properly apprised of the insured’s medical history, she would
have at least have been made to undergo medical examination in order to
determine her insurability.

Lastly, it is argued that if ever there was concealment on Saturnino’s part,


the same was not fraudulent for she was devoid of knowledge that she was
operated for cancer. The same is not tenable, because the concealment of the
fact of the operation itself is fraudulent, as there could not have been any mistake
about it, aside from the fact that in this jurisdiction, concealment, whether
intentional or unintentional, entitles the insurer to rescind the contract of
insurance.

S-ar putea să vă placă și