ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141494. June 7, 2000]

JOVITO BORJA, et al. vs. CA, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 141494 (Jovito Borja [for himself and in behalf of this minor children, Mary Jane Jumel and Jessie all surnamed Borja] vs. The Court of Appeals [Sp. Former 5 th Division] and The American Life Insurance Company.)

Petitioner prays for the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals which denied petitioner's recovery on his wife's insurance policy on the ground of fraudulent material concealment.

It appears that on February 10, 1986 petitioner Jovito Borja obtained a life insurance policy for his wife Jocie R. Borja from private respondent Philippine American Life Insurance Company in the amount of P1 million with double indemnity in case of death. Two months later, or on April 25, 1986, the insured, Jocie was found dead with multiple stab wounds on the chest, on the pavement of Villongco Road, West Service Road, South Superhighway, Para�aque, Metro Manila. On May 9, 1986, petitioner; for himself and on behalf of his children as beneficiaries of Jocie, filed a claim for the proceeds of Jocie's insurance policy. This claim was denied by private respondent because the insured failed to disclose that Jocie had been previously treated for hepatitis, urinary tract infection and epigastric pain, and that she was undergoing treatment for hypertension. Further, the company claimed that the fact that Jocie was also insured by two other insurance companies was concealed.

Petitioner filed a complaint and was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court of Manila. This action was sustained by the Court of Appeals.

Hence, the instant petition which we find bereft of merit.

In Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada vs. Court of Appeals, (245 SCRA 268 [1995]), we held that the insurer may properly exercise its right to rescind the contract of insurance by reason of concealment employed by the insured. Matters relating to the health of the insured are material and relevant to the approval and issuance of a life insurance policy as these definitely affect the insurer's action on the application.

For not disclosing the insured's history of medical ailments and the existence of two other insurance policies, private respondent was correct in voiding the contract of insurance.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE