G.R. No. L-5642 HERMINIA vs. THE IN !

LAR LIFE A

February 25, 1954 Q. KANAPI, plaintiff-appellant,

!RAN"E "#., LT$., defendant-appellee. Catalico for appellant.

Jose Aguirre and Alfredo Araneta and Araneta for appellee. RE%E , J.&

This is an action on a life insurance policy. On August 1, 1848, the defendant insurance company issued a policy on the life of plaintiff's husband, enry !. "anapi, #hereby defendant undertoo$ to pay to plaintiff as beneficiary, upon the death of the insured, the sum of %&,''' if the death be due to natural causes and an additional %&,''' if the death be due to accidental means, payment of this additional sum being provided for in the (Accidental )eath *enefit %olicy +lause( appended to and forming part of the policy but e,pressly made sub-ect to the e,ception that the clause #ould not apply #here death resulted from in-ury (intentionally inflicted by a third party.( )uring the life of the policy, the insured died from a bullet #ound inflicted, #ithout provocation, by one +onrado .uemosing, #ho, as author of the $illing, #as found guilty of murder and sentenced to prison. /pon receiving proof of the insured's death, defendant paid plaintiff %&,''', but refused to pay the additional %&,''' claimed upon the accidental death benefit clause on the ground that, as the in-ured died from an in-ury intentionally inflicted by a third party, the clause did not apply. The present action is for the recovery of the additional sum. /pholding defendant's stand, the lo#er court dismissed the action, #hereupon plaintiff appealed to this +ourt, and the 0uestion for us to determine is #hether plaintiff is entitled to the additional %&,''' claimed under the accident benefit clause of the policy. This clause provide for the payment of the sum upon proof (that the death of the 1nsured resulted directly from bodily in-ury affected through e,ternal and violent means sustained in an accident . . . and independently of all other clauses.( *ut far from proving that the insured died from bodily in-ury sustained in an accident, the agreed facts are to the effect that the insured #as murdered, thus ma$ing it indisputable that his death resulted from in-ury (intentionally inflicted by a third party(2 #hich is one of the e,ceptions to the accident benefit clause, according to #hich the benefit shall not apply to death resulting from (3&4 Any in-ury received . . . 3e4 that has been inflicted intentionally by a third party, either #ith or #ithout provocation on the part of the 1nsured, and #hether or not the attac$ or the defense by the third party #as caused by a violation of the la# by the 1nsured. . . .( There is nothing to the suggestion that the case comes under e,ception & 3 d4 or that portion of it #hich e,cepts from the benefit any in-ury received (in any assault provo$ed by the 1nsured(, it being argued that by e,press mention of provo$ed assault an unprovo$ed one is inferentially e,cluded. The inference is not admissible because #here the in-ury is inflicted #ithout provocation the case comes #ithin the terms of e,ception & 3e4, #hich, is, therefore, the one that should be applied. 5e find the decision appealed from to be in accordance #ith la# and the facts. 1t is, therefore, affirmed, #ith costs. Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.