Southern Luzon Employees' Association vs. Golpeo, et. al No. L-6114 cto!

er "#, 1$%4 &A'(S) Southern Luzon Employees' Association (SLEA) is composed of laborers and employees of Tayabas Bus. Company and Batan as transportation Company !"urpose# mutual aid of its members and their dependents in case of death. $%&%# SLEA adopted a resolution allo'in a member to name as his beneficiaries his common la' 'ife and(or children 'ith her. )oman Concepcion 'as a member of SLEA. *e listed as his beneficiaries# !A+,-L-.A /AL0LES (common la' 'ife) !)0/A.1 2).1 ESTELA1 )0LA.301 )0B-. (children 'ith A4uilina) $%56 )oman died. SLEA collected contributions from its members amountin to "71565 for its member1 )oman. !those 'ho presented to claim $.) 2uanita 8olpeo (le al 'ife)and children9 7.) A4uilina (common la' 'ife) and children ( listed beneficiaries)9 :.) Elsie *icban (another common la' 'ife) and child an action for interpleadin 'as instituted by SLEA a ainst the claimants. the court rendered the decision declarin A4uilina and her children the sole beneficiaries of the sum "71565. only 80L"E0 and C*-L3)E. appealed claimin that# a.) insurance la' is not applicable since SLEA is a mutual benefit association under )e;ised Administrati;e Code and not an insurance company. b.) e;en if the a reement is a contract of insurance1 the stipulation b(' SLEA and the deceased is ;oid for bein contrary to la'1 moral1 or public policy because accordin to Art. <:% of .CC1 a donation is ;oid 'hen made b(' persons 'ho are uilty of adultery or concubina e at the time of donation1 considerin that A+,-L-.A is not the le al 'ife.

*SS+E# =(. the a reement is a contract of insurance # =(. A4uilina and her children can be ;alidly made as )oman's beneficiaries.

,EL-# The appealed decision 'as affirmed. $.) SLEA -S .0T A )E8,LA) -.S,)A.CE C0/"A.> B,T T*E 3EAT* BE.E?-T -S A.AL080,S T0 A. -.S,)A.CE. )e;ised Administrati;e Code sec $@7A defines a mutual benefit association as Ban association pro;idin for any method of accident or L-?E -.S,)A.CE amon its members out of dues or assessments collected from the membershipB1 thus1 the lo'er court correctly held that the a reement b(' SLEA and )oman partooC of the nature of a contract of insurance. 7.) >es. The lo'er court in;oCed the pronouncements in the case of del val vs. del val that1 the a reement bein analo ous to a contract of insurance1 then the amount in 4uestion belon ed eDclusi;ely to A+,-L-.A and her children and not to the estate of )oman Concepcion1 and that such proceeds are the separate and indi;idual property of the beneficiary1 and not of the heirs of the person insured ()oman in this case). This doctrine is supported by sec &7A of the Code of Commerce 'hich reads#
"The amounts which the underwriter must deliver to the person insured, in fulfillment of the contract, shall be the property of the latter, even against the claims of the legitimate heirs or creditors of any kind whatsoever of the person who effected the insurance in favor of the former."

And e;en rantin that the claim of the counsel for 8olpeo that the pro;ision of the .e' Ci;il Code should be applied1 their ar ument 'ith re ard to A4uilinaEs status shall still not affect the ri hts of A4uilinaEs children 'ho are also named beneficiaries of )oman1 because e;en the .e' Ci;il Code reco nizes the successional ri hts of ille itimate children.