Topic: Beneficiary of one who insures his own life- insured may designate any person as his

beneficiary. Exception: persons specified in Article 739 of New Civil Code.

Insular Life vs Ebrado

FACTS:
On September 1, 1968, Buenaventura Cristor Ebrado was issued by The Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd., on a whole-life for P5,882.00 with a rider for Accidental Death for the same amount. He
designated Carponia T. Ebrado, his common-law wife as the revocable beneficiary in his policy. He
referred to her as his wife in the policy. On October 21, 1969, He died as a result of an accident when
he was hit by a failing branch of a tree. As the policy was in force, the insurance company was liable
to pay the coverage in the total amount of P11,745.73, representing the face value of the policy in the
amount of P5,882.00 plus the additional benefits for accidental death also in the amount of P5,882.00
and the refund of P18.00 paid for the premium due November, 1969, minus the unpaid premiums and
interest thereon due for January and February, 1969, in the sum of P36.27. Carponia T. Ebrado filed a
claim for the proceeds of the Policy as the designated beneficiary therein, although she admits that
she and the insured Buenaventura C. Ebrado were merely living as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage. Pascual T. Ebrado, also filed a claim to the insurance company, this time claiming
to be the legal wife Buenaventura. She asserts that she has a better right over the proceeds than
Carponia who is a common-law wife. As the insurance company is at a loss as to whom to give the
proceeds, it commenced an action for interpleader in court. After the issues have been joined, a pretrial conference was held on July 8, 1972, that there is no possibility of amicable settlement. The
Court proceeded to have the parties submit their evidence for the purpose of the pre-trial and make
admissions for the purpose of pretrial. On September 25, 1972, the trial court rendered judgment
declaring among others, Carponia T. Ebrado disqualified from becoming beneficiary of the insured
Buenaventura Cristor Ebrado and directing the payment of the insurance proceeds to the estate of
the deceased insured. From this judgment, Carponia T. Ebrado appealed to the Court of Appeals, but
on July 11, 1976, the Appellate Court certified the case to Us as involving only questions of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a common-law wife named as beneficiary in the life insurance policy of a
legally married man claim the proceeds thereof in case of death of the latter.
RULING:
The appealed judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.
Carponia T. Ebrado is hereby declared disqualified to be the beneficiary of the late
Buenaventura C. Ebrado in his life insurance policy. As a consequence, the proceeds of the policy are
hereby held payable to the estate of the deceased insured. Costs against Carponia T. Ebrado.

A common-law wife named as a beneficiary in the life insurance policy of a legally married man
cannot claim the proceeds thereof in case the death of the latter. The contract of insurance is govern
by the provisions of the new civil code on matters not specifically provided for in the insurance code.
Rather, the general rules of civil law should be applied to resolve this void in the Insurance Law.
Article 2011 of the New Civil Code states: The contract of insurance is governed by special laws.
Matters not expressly provided for in such special laws shall be regulated by this Code. When not
otherwise specifically provided for by the Insurance Law, the contract of life insurance is governed by
the general rules of the civil law regulating contracts. And under Article 2012 of the same Code, any
person who is forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be named beneficiary
of a fife insurance policy by the person who cannot make a donation to him. Common-law spouses
are, definitely, barred from receiving donations from each other. Also conviction for adultery or
concubinage is not required as only preponderance of evidence is necessary. In essence, a life
insurance policy is no different from a civil donation insofar as the beneficiary is concerned. Both are
founded upon the same consideration: liberality. A beneficiary is like a donee, because the premiums
of the policy which the insured pays out of liberality, the beneficiary will receive the proceeds or profits
of said insurance.

Topic: Designation of Illegitimate Children

Maramag vs Maramag

FACTS:
Petitioners in this case are the legitimate heirs of deceased Loreto Maramag. The petitioners were not
named as beneficiaries in the insurance policies issued by Insular and Grepalife. Petitioners claim that
Eva, the concubine of Loreto and a suspect in his murder, is disqualified from being designated of the
insurance policies. T h e y f u r t h e r a d d t h a t E v a s c h i l d r e n w i t h L o r e t o , b e i n g i l l e g i t i m a t e
children, are entitled to a lesser share of the proceeds of the policies
T h u s , t h e y p r a ye d t h a t t h e s h a r e o f E v a a n d p o r t i o n s o f t h e s h a r e
o f L o r e t o s i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n s h o u l d b e a w a r d e d t o t h e m , b e i n g t h e legitimate
heirs of Loreto entitled to their respective legitimes.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the proceeds should be awarded to the petitioners
RULING:
No. The insurance contracts are governed by specials laws.

Petitioners are third parties to the insurance contracts with Insular and Grepalife and
thus, they are not entitled to the proceeds thereof.
T h e I n s u l a r a n d G r e p a l i f e h a v e n o l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n t o t u r n o v e r t h e insurance
proceeds to the petitioner.
It is only in cases where the insured has not designated any beneficiary, or when the
designated beneficiary is disqualified by law to receive the proceeds, that the insurance
policy proceeds shall redound to the benefit of the estate of the insured.