ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY<br /><br />102 Phil 919

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-10874. January 28, 1958.]

    RUFINO D. ANDRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

    Esteban Aguinaldo and Santiago D. Andres for Appellant.

    Nicodemus L. Dasig for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    INSURANCE; LIFE; REINSTATEMENT OF POLICY, DISCRETIONARY ON INSURER. — The stipulation in a life insurance policy giving the insured the privilege to reinstate it upon written application does not give the insured absolute right to such reinstatement by the mere filing of an application. The insurer has the right to deny the reinstatement if it is not satisfied as to the insurability of the insured and if the latter does not pay all overdue premiums and all other indebtedness to the Company. After the death of the insured, the insurance Company cannot be compelled to entertain for reinstatement of the policy because the conditions precedent to reinstatement can no longer be determined and satisfied (James McGuire v. The Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co., 48 Off. Gaz. (1), 114).


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J. B. L., J.:


    On April 20, 1952, Rufino D. Andres filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte against the Crown Life Insurance Company for the recovery of the amount of P5,000, as the face value of a joint 20-year endowment insurance policy issued in favor of the plaintiff Rufino D. Andres and his wife Severa G. Andres on the 13th of February, 1950, by said insurance company. On June 7, 1951, Rufino Andres presented his death claim as survivor-beneficiary of the deceased Severa G. Andres, who died May 3, 1951. Payment having been denied by the insurance company on April 20, 1952, this case was instituted.

    Defendant Company filed its answer in due time disclaiming liability and setting forth the special defense that the aforementioned policy had already lapsed. Later, on March 25, 1954, the parties submitted the case for decision by the lower court upon a stipulation of facts, fully quoted hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That on October 20, 1949, plaintiff and Severa G. Andres filed an application for insurance No. 536,423, which are hereto marked as common Exhibits "1" and "1-A", respectively;

    2. That on February 13, 1950, defendant issued Crown Life Policy No. 536,423 for the sum of P5,000, in the name of Rufino D. Andres, plaintiff, and Severa G. Andres, which is hereto marked as common Exhibit "2" ;

    3. That the premiums are to be paid as called for in the policy Exhibit "2", semi-annually, and the amount of P165.15 for the first semester beginning November 25, 1949 to May 25, 1950 was paid on November 25, 1949, which is hereby marked as common Exhibit "3", and the premium likewise in the sum of P165.15 for the second semester beginning May 25, 1950 to November 25, 1950, was paid on June 24, 1950, as evidenced by common Exhibit "3-A" ; and the premium for the third semester beginning November 25, 1950 to May 25, 1951 was not paid;

    4. That on January 6, 1951, the defendant, thru Mr. I. B. Melendres, wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Rufino D. Andres advising them that the said Policy No. 536,423 lapsed on December 25, 1950 and the amount overdue was P165.15, giving them a period of sixty (60) days from the date of lapse to file an application for reinstatement, which letter is made as common Exhibit "4" ;

    5. That on February 12, 1951, the said Mr. I. B. Melendres, branch secretary of the defendant, wrote Mr. and Mrs. Rufino D. Andres, telling the latter that Policy No. 536,423 was no longer in force and it lapsed on December 25, 1950, which letter is herewith made as common Exhibit "5" ;

    6. That in the month of February, 1951, plaintiff executed a Statement of Health which is at the same time an Application for Reinstatement of the aforesaid policy, which application is herewith made as common Exhibit "6" (Note: Exhibit "6" is the reverse side of Exhibit "4"). and Severa G. Andres also executed in the month of February, 1951, an Application for Reinstatement, which Application for Reinstatement is made as common Exhibit "7" ;

    7. That on February 20, 1951, plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant and enclosed therewith a money order for P100, which letter was received by the defendant on February 26, 1951, wherein it is stated that the balance unpaid is the sum of P65.15, which letter is hereby made as common Exhibit "8" ;

    8. That on April 14, 1951, the said Mr. I. B. Melendres, as branch secretary for the defendant; wrote plaintiff advising him that the Home Office has approved the reinstatement of the lapsed policy, subject to the payment of P65.15 due on November, 1950 premium, a duplicate original copy of the said letter is hereby made as common Exhibit "9" ;

    9. That on April 27, 1951, said Mr. I. B. Melendres, branch secretary, again wrote the plaintiff requesting the remittance of the balance of P65.15 due on the semi-annual premium for November, 1950, and upon receipt of the said amount, there will be sent to him the Certificate of Reinstatement of the policy, a duplicate original copy of said letter is hereto made as common Exhibit "10" ;

    10. That on May 5, 1951, plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant and enclosed therewith a Money Order in the amount of P65.00 for the balance due on the Crown Life Policy No. 536,423, which letter has been received in the office of the defendant on May 11, 1951, which letter is herewith made as common Exhibit "11" ;

    11. That on May 15, 1951, said Mr. I. B. Melendres wrote a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Rufino D. Andres, enclosing an Official Receipt for the receipt of P165.15, which Official Receipt is hereby made as common Exhibit "12", and also enclosed therewith a Certificate of Reinstatement dated April 2, 1951, which is herewith made as common Exhibit "13", and the duplicate original copy of the aforesaid letter dated May 15, 1951 is herewith made as common Exhibit "14", and premium notice addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Rufino D. Andres, wherein it is shown that the semi-annual premium in the sum of P165.15 on the said policy would be due on May 15, 1951, which premium notice is herewith made as common Exhibit "14-A" ;

    12. That on June 7, 1951, plaintiff presented his Death Claim as survivor-beneficiary of the deceased Severa G. Andres which has been received in the office of the defendant on June 11, 1951, which letter is herewith made as common Exhibit "15", and there were therein enclosed in the said letter an affidavit dated June 6, 1951 of the plaintiff, which is herewith made as common Exhibit "15-A", and a Certificate of Death dated May 29, 1951, issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the municipality of Sarrat, wherein it is shown that Mrs. Severa G. Andres died on May 3, 1951 of dystocia, second degree, contracted pelvis, which Certificate of Death is herewith made as common Exhibit "15-B", and a medical certificate of Dr. R. de la Cuesta, senior resident physician of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Hospital, dated May 20, 1951, showing the cause of death of the said deceased, Mrs. Severa G. Andres, which medical certificate is herewith made as common Exhibit "15-C" ;

    13. That on June 30, 1951, Mr. I. B. Melendres wrote to plaintiff stating defendant’s reasons for its refusal to pay the death claim of the plaintiff which letter is herewith made as common Exhibit "16", in which there was therein enclosed a Death Claim Discharge to be signed by the plaintiff but the plaintiff refused to sign, which Death Claim Discharge is herewith made as common Exhibit "16-A" ;

    14. That on November 23, 1951, the said Mr. I. B. Melendres wrote plaintiff enclosing therewith a National City Bank of New York Check No. D-115356 for P165.00 payable to plaintiff, dated June 21, 1951, an original duplicate copy of which is herewith made as common Exhibit "17" ;

    15. That on December 1, 1951, the plaintiff wrote defendant company and enclosed therewith the aforesaid National City Bank of New York Check No. D-115356 dated June 21, 1951, which letter is herewith made as Common Exhibit "18", and the check returned to the defendant company as Exhibit "18-A" ;

    16. That with the approval of this stipulation of facts, the parties hereby submit the same and do hereby request the Honorable Court to give them twenty (20) days within which to file simultaneously their corresponding memoranda and another fifteen (10) days for a reply memorandum." (Rec. App., pp. 17-22)

    On August 5, 1954, Judge Julio Villamor rendered decision absolving the defendant from any liability on the ground that the policy having lapsed, it was not reinstated at the time the plaintiff’s wife died. Not satisfied with the decision, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was later certified to this Court, for there is no question of fact involved therein.

    As has been correctly stated by the lower court, the resolution of the issues in this case centers on whether or not policy No. 536423 (Exhibit "2") which has been in a state of lapse before May 3, 1951, has been validly and completely reinstated after said date. In other words, was there a perfected contract of reinstatement after the policy lapsed due to non-payment of premiums?

    The stipulation of facts and accompanying exhibits render it undisputable that the original policy No. 536423 lapsed for non- payment of premiums on December 26, 1950, upon expiration of the customary 31-day period of grace. The subsequent reinstatement of the policy was provided for in the contract itself in the following terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "If this policy lapses, it may be reinstated upon application made within three years from the date of lapse, and upon production of evidence of the good health of the injured (and also of the Beneficiary, if the rate of premium depends upon the age of the Beneficiary), and such other evidence of insurability at the date of application for reinstatement as would then satisfy the Company to issue a new Policy on the same terms as this Policy, and upon payment of all overdue premiums and other indebtedness in respect of this Policy, together with interest at six per cent, compounded annually, and provided also that no change has taken place in such good health and insurability subsequent to the date of such application and before this Policy is reinstated."cralaw virtua1aw library

    As stated by the lower court, the conditions set forth in the policy for reinstatement are the following: (a) application shall be made within three years from the date of lapse; (b) there should be a production of evidence of the good health of the insured: (c) if the rate of premium depends upon the age of the Beneficiary, there should likewise be a production of evidence of his or her good health; (d) there should be presented such other evidence of insurability at the date of application for reinstatement; (e) there should be no change which has taken place in such good health and insurability subsequent to the date of such application and before the policy is reinstated; and (f) all overdue premiums and other indebtedness in respect of the policy, together with interest at six per cent, compounded annually, should first be paid.

    The plaintiff-appellant did not comply with the last condition; for he only paid P100 (on account of the overdue semi-annual premium of P165.15) on February 20, 1951, before his wife’s death (Stipulation, par. 7); and, despite the Company’s reminders on April 14 and 27, he remitted the balance of P65 on May 5, 1951 (received by the Company’s agency on May 11), two days after his wife died. On the face of such facts, the Company had the right to treat the contract as lapsed and refuse payment of the policy.

    Appellant, however, contends that the condition regarding payment of the premium was waived by the insurance Company by its letters (signed by I. B. Melendres, cashier, Exhibits 4 and 5, wherein the Company manifested to appellant:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "If you can not pay the full amount immediately, send as large an amount as possible and advise us how soon you expect to be able to pay the balance. Every consideration will be given to your request consistent with the company’s regulations" (Exhibit 4)

    "If you are unable to cover this amount in full, send us as big an amount as you are able and we will work out an adjustment most beneficial to you." (Exhibit 5)

    We see nothing in these expressions that would indicate an intention on the insurer’s part to waive the full payment of the overdue premium as prerequisite to the reinstatement of the lapsed policy, considering the well settled rule that a waiver must be clear and positive, and intent to waive shown clearly and convincingly (Fernandez v. Sabido, 70 Phil. 151, 159; Lang v. Sheriff * 49 Off. Gaz. 3323, 3329; Jocson v. Capitol Subdivision, Inc. G. R. L-6573, February 28, 1955). The promise to give plaintiff’s case every consideration does not import any decision to renounce the insurer’s rights; and as to the "working out of an adjustment most beneficial" to the insured, the proposal is obviously so vague and indefinite as to require further negotiations between the parties, for their criteria might differ as to what would be the most beneficial arrangement.

    Upon the other hand, the subsequent letters of the insurance Company (Exhibits 9 and 10) patently indicated that the Company insisted on the full payment of the premium before the policy was reinstated.

    "We take this opportunity of advising you that our Home Office has approved the reinstatement of your lapsed policy subject to the payment of the balance of P65.15 due on your November 1950 premium. Kindly remit this amount in order that you may once more enjoy the benefits of insurance protection" (Exhibit 9, April 14, 1951).

    "We may now reinstate your policy if you will kindly remit to us the balance of P65.15 due on your semi-annual premium for November, 1950. Please send us his amount by return mail and upon its receipt we will in turn send the Certificate of Reinstatement of your policy, thus rendering it once again in full force and effect," (Exhibit 10, April 27, 1951) (Emphasis supplied)

    Clearly the Company did not consider the partial payment as sufficient consideration for the reinstatement. Appellant’s failure to remit the balance before the death of his wife operated to deprive him of any right to waive the policy and recover the face value thereof.

    This Court, in the case of James McGuire v. The Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co. (87 Phil., 370, 48 Off. Gaz. [1], 114), said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The stipulation in a life insurance policy going the insured the privilege to reinstate it upon written application does not give the insured absolute right to such reinstatement by the mere filing of an application. The Company has the right to deny the reinstatement if it is not satisfied as to the insurability of the insured and if the latter does no pay all overdue premium and all other indebtedness to the company. After the death of the insured the insurance Company cannot be compelled to entertain an application for reinstatement of the policy because the conditions precedent to reinstatement can no longer be determined and satisfied."

    Wherefore, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, we hereby affirm the same, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

    Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    * 93 Phil., 661.

    G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY<br /><br />102 Phil 919


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED