Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

GAISANO CAGAYAN, INC. vs.

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Petitioner argues that IMC bears the risk of loss because it expressly reserved ownership of the goods by stipulating in the sales invoices that "[i]t is further agreed that merely for purpose of securing the payment of the purchase price the above described merchandise remains the property of the vendor until the purchase price thereof is fully paid."26 The Court is not persuaded. The present case clearly falls under paragraph (1), Article 1504 of the Civil Code: ART. 1504. Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk until the ownership therein is transferred to the buyer, but when the ownership therein is transferred to the buyer the goods are at the buyer's risk whether actual delivery has been made or not, except that: (1) Where delivery of the goods has been made to the buyer or to a bailee for the buyer, in pursuance of the contract and the ownership in the goods has been retained by the seller merely to secure performance by the buyer of his obligations under the contract, the goods are at the buyer's risk from the time of such delivery; (Emphasis supplied) xxxx Thus, when the seller retains ownership only to insure that the buyer will pay its debt, the risk of loss is borne by the buyer.27 Accordingly, petitioner bears the risk of loss of the goods delivered. IMC and LSPI did not lose complete interest over the goods. They have an insurable interest until full payment of the value of the delivered goods. Unlike the civil law concept of res perit domino, where ownership is the basis for consideration of who bears the risk of loss, in property insurance, one's interest is not determined by concept of title, but whether insured has substantial economic interest in the property.28 Section 13 of our Insurance Code defines insurable interest as "every interest in property, whether real or personal, or any relation thereto, or liability in respect thereof, of such nature that a contemplated peril might directly damnify the insured." Parenthetically, under Section 14 of the same Code, an insurable interest in property may consist in: (a) an existing interest; (b) an inchoate interest founded on existing interest; or (c) an expectancy, coupled with an existing interest in that out of which the expectancy arises. Therefore, an insurable interest in property does not necessarily imply a property interest in, or a lien upon, or possession of, the subject matter of the insurance, and neither the title nor a beneficial interest is requisite to the existence of such an interest, it is sufficient that the insured is so situated with reference to the property that he would be liable to loss should it be injured or destroyed by the peril against which it is insured.29 Anyone has an insurable interest in property who derives a benefit from its existence or would suffer loss from its destruction.30Indeed, a vendor or seller retains an insurable interest in the property sold so long as he has any interest therein, in other words, so long as he would suffer by its destruction, as where he has a vendor's lien.31 In this case, the insurable interest of IMC and LSPI pertain to the unpaid accounts appearing in their Books of Account 45 days after the time of the loss covered by the policies. DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE COMPANIES vs. RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK, INC. G.R. NO. 147039 January 27, 2006

Petitioner argues that private respondent is responsible for proving that the cause of the damage/loss is covered by the insurance policy, as stipulated in the insurance policy, to wit: Any loss or damage happening during the existence of abnormal conditions (whether physical or otherwise) which are occasioned by or through in consequence directly or indirectly, of any of the said occurrences shall be deemed to be loss or damage which is not covered by the insurance, except to the extent that the Insured shall prove that such loss or damage happened independently of the existence of such abnormal conditions. In any action, suit or other proceeding where the Companies allege that by reason of the provisions of this condition any loss or damage is not covered by this insurance, the burden of proving that such loss or damage is covered shall be upon the Insured.12 An insurance contract, being a contract of adhesion, should be so interpreted as to carry out the purpose for which the parties entered into the contract which is to insure against risks of loss or damage to the goods. Limitations of liability should be regarded with extreme jealousy and must be construed in such a way as to preclude the insurer from noncompliance with its obligations.13 The "burden of proof" contemplated by the aforesaid provision actually refers to the "burden of evidence" (burden of going forward).14 As applied in this case, it refers to the duty of the insured to show that the loss or damage is covered by the policy. The foregoing clause notwithstanding, the burden of proof still rests upon petitioner to prove that the damage or loss was caused by an excepted risk in order to escape any liability under the contract. Burden of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil cases. The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment. For the plaintiff, the burden of proof never parts.15 For the defendant, an affirmative defense is one which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiffs cause of action, but one which, if established, will be a good defense i.e. an "avoidance" of the claim.16 Particularly, in insurance cases, where a risk is excepted by the terms of a policy which insures against other perils or hazards, loss from such a risk constitutes a defense which the insurer may urge, since it has not assumed that risk, and from this it follows that an insurer seeking to defeat a claim because of an exception or limitation in the policy has the burden of proving that the loss comes within the purview of the exception or limitation set up. If a proof is made of a loss apparently within a contract of insurance, the burden is upon the insurer to prove that the loss arose from a cause of loss which is excepted or for which it is not liable, or from a cause which limits its liability.17 Consequently, it is sufficient for private respondent to prove the fact of damage or loss. Once respondent makes out a prima facie case in its favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to petitioner to controvert respondents prima facie case.18 In this case, since petitioner alleged an excepted risk, then the burden of evidence shifted to petitioner to prove such exception. It is only when petitioner has sufficiently proven that the damage or loss was caused by an excepted risk does the burden of evidence shift back to respondent who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show why such excepted risk does not release petitioner from any liability. Unfortunately for petitioner, it failed to discharge its primordial burden of proving that the damage or loss was caused by an excepted risk.

PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE and ASSURANCE INC vs. TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC. G.R. No. 151890 June 20, 2006 B. Assuming arguendo that TRANS-ASIA violated the policy condition on WARRANTED VESSEL CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED, PRUDENTIAL made a valid waiver of the same. The Court of Appeals, in reversing the Judgment of the RTC which held that TRANS-ASIA breached the warranty provision on CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED, underscored that PRUDENTIAL can be deemed to have made a valid waiver of TRANS-ASIAs breach of warranty as alleged, ratiocinating, thus: Third, after the loss, Prudential renewed the insurance policy of Trans-Asia for two (2) consecutive years, from noon of 01 July 1994 to noon of 01 July 1995, and then again until noon of 01 July 1996. This renewal is deemed a waiver of any breach of warranty.26 PRUDENTIAL finds fault with the ruling of the appellate court when it ruled that the renewal policies are deemed a waiver of TRANS-ASIAs alleged breach, averring herein that the subsequent policies, designated as MH94/1595 and MH95/1788 show that they were issued only on 1 July 1994 and 3 July 1995, respectively, prior to the time it made a request to TRANS-ASIA that it be furnished a copy of the certification specifying that the insured vessel "M/V Asia Korea" was CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. PRUDENTIAL posits that it came to know of the breach by TRANS-ASIA of the subject warranty clause only on 21 April 1997. On even date, PRUDENTIAL sent TRANS-ASIA a letter of denial, advising the latter that their claim is not compensable. In fine, PRUDENTIAL would have this Court believe that the issuance of the renewal policies cannot be a waiver because they were issued without knowledge of the alleged breach of warranty committed by TRANS-ASIA.27 We are not impressed. We do not find that the Court of Appeals was in error when it held that PRUDENTIAL, in renewing TRANS-ASIAs insurance policy for two consecutive years after the loss covered by Policy No. MH93/1363, was considered to have waived TRANS-ASIAs breach of the subject warranty, if any. Breach of a warranty or of a condition renders the contract defeasible at the option of the insurer; but if he so elects, he may waive his privilege and power to rescind by the mere expression of an intention so to do. In that event his liability under the policy continues as before.28 There can be no clearer intention of the waiver of the alleged breach than the renewal of the policy insurance granted by PRUDENTIAL to TRANS-ASIA in MH94/1595 and MH95/1788, issued in the years 1994 and 1995, respectively. To our mind, the argument is made even more credulous by PRUDENTIALs lack of proof to support its allegation that the renewals of the policies were taken only after a request was made to TRANSASIA to furnish them a copy of the certificate attesting that "M/V Asia Korea" was CLASSED AND CLASS MAINTAINED. Notwithstanding PRUDENTIALs claim that no certification was issued to that effect, it renewed the policy, thereby, evidencing an intention to waive TRANS-ASIAs alleged breach. Clearly, by granting the renewal policies twice and successively after the loss, the intent was to benefit the insured, TRANS-ASIA, as well as to waive compliance of the warranty. The foregoing finding renders a determination of whether the subject warranty is a rider, moot, as raised by the PRUDENTIAL in its assignment of errors. Whether it is a rider will not effectively alter the result for the reasons that: (1) PRUDENTIAL was not able to discharge the burden of evidence to show that TRANS-ASIA committed a breach, thereof; and (2) assuming arguendo the commission of a breach by TRANS-ASIA, the same was shown to have been waived by PRUDENTIAL.