Eternal Gardens Memorial Park V Philamlife Insurance Company Full Text

9/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

___________________

G.R. No. 166245. April 9, 2008.*
ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK

CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE
AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.
Evidence; Witnesses; We ruled in People v. Paredes, 368 SCRA

102 (2001), that minor inconsistencies are too trivial to affect the
credibility of witnesses, and these may even serve to strengthen
their credibility as these negate any suspicion that the testimonies
have been rehearsed.—As to the seeming inconsistencies between
the testimony of Manuel Cortez on whether one or two insurance
application forms were accomplished and the testimony of
Mendoza on who actually filled out the application form, these are
minor inconsistencies that do not affect the credibility of the
witnesses. Thus, we ruled in People v. Paredes, 368 SCRA 102
(2001), that minor inconsistencies are too trivial to affect the
credibility of witnesses, and
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Philippine

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174a84f8a4aa2119fd8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
American Life Insurance Company
these may even serve to strengthen their credibility as these

negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.
Contracts; Insurance Law; It must be remembered that an
insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which must be
construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the
insurer in order to safeguard the latter’s interest.—It must be
remembered that an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion
which must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and
strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the latter’s
interest. Thus, in Malayan Insurance Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 270 SCRA 242 (1997), this Court held that: Indemnity
and liability insurance policies are construed in accordance with
the general rule of resolving any ambiguity therein in favor of the
insured, where the contract or policy is prepared by the insurer. A
contract of insurance, being a contract of adhesion, par
excellence, any ambiguity therein should be resolved
against the insurer; in other words, it should be construed
liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.
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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Same; Same; The mere inaction of the insurer on the
insurance application must not work to prejudice the insured; it
cannot be interpreted as a termination of the insurance contract.—
The seemingly conflicting provisions must be harmonized to mean
that upon a party’s purchase of a memorial lot on installment
from Eternal, an insurance contract covering the lot purchaser is
created and the same is effective, valid, and binding until
terminated by Philamlife by disapproving the insurance
application. The second sentence of Creditor Group Life Policy No.
P-1920 on the Effective Date of Benefit is in the nature of a
resolutory condition which would lead to the cessation of the
insurance contract. Moreover, the mere inaction of the insurer on
the insurance application must not work to prejudice the insured;
it cannot be interpreted as a termination of the insurance
contract. The termination of the insurance contract by the insurer
must be explicit and unambiguous.
Same; Same; Insurance contracts are imbued with public
interest that must be considered whenever the rights and
obligations of the
VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 3

insurer and the insured are to be delineated.—To characterize

the insurer and the insured as contracting parties on equal
footing is inaccurate at best. Insurance contracts are wholly
prepared by the insurer with vast amounts of experience in the
industry purposefully used to its advantage. More often than not,
insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion containing technical
terms and conditions of the industry, confusing if at all
understandable to laypersons, that are imposed on those who
wish to avail of insurance. As such, insurance contracts are
imbued with public interest that must be considered whenever
the rights and obligations of the insurer and the insured are to be
delineated. Hence, in order to protect the interest of insurance
applicants, insurance companies must be obligated to act with
haste upon insurance applications, to either deny or approve the
same, or otherwise be bound to honor the application as a valid,
binding, and effective insurance contract.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Santiago, Arevalo, Asuncion & Associates for
petitioner.
Roland B. Ebbah, Jr. for respondent.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
Central to this Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 which seeks to reverse and set aside the November
26, 2004 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 57810 is the query: May the inaction of the insurer
on the insurance application be considered as approval of
the application?
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 45-54. Penned by Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada

and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon (Chairperson)
and Mario L. Guariña III.

The Facts
On December 10, 1980, respondent Philippine American
Life Insurance Company (Philamlife) entered into an
agreement denominated as Creditor Group Life Policy No.
P-19202 with petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park
Corporation (Eternal). Under the policy, the clients of
Eternal who purchased burial lots from it on installment
basis would be insured by Philamlife. The amount of
insurance coverage depended upon the existing balance of
the purchased burial lots. The policy was to be effective for
a period of one year, renewable on a yearly basis.
The relevant provisions of the policy are:
ELIGIBILITY.
Any Lot Purchaser of the Assured who is at least 18 but not
more than 65 years of age, is indebted to the Assured for the
unpaid balance of his loan with the Assured, and is accepted for
Life Insurance coverage by the Company on its effective date is
eligible for insurance under the Policy.
EVIDENCE OF INSURABILITY.
No medical examination shall be required for amounts of
insurance up to P50,000.00. However, a declaration of good health
shall be required for all Lot Purchasers as part of the application.
The Company reserves the right to require further evidence of
insurability satisfactory to the Company in respect of the
following:
1. Any amount of insurance in excess of P50,000.00.
2. Any lot purchaser who is more than 55 years of age.
LIFE INSURANCE BENEFIT.
The Life Insurance coverage of any Lot Purchaser at any time
shall be the amount of the unpaid balance of his loan (including
arrears up to but not exceeding 2 months) as reported by the
Assured to the Company or the sum of P100,000.00, whichever is
_______________
2 Records, pp. 57-62.
VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 5

smaller. Such benefit shall be paid to the Assured if the Lot

Purchaser dies while insured under the Policy.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF BENEFIT.
The insurance of any eligible Lot Purchaser shall be effective
on the date he contracts a loan with the Assured. However, there
shall be no insurance if the application of the Lot Purchaser is not
approved by the Company.3
Eternal was required under the policy to submit to

Philamlife a list of all new lot purchasers, together with a
copy of the application of each purchaser, and the amounts
of the respective unpaid balances of all insured lot
purchasers. In relation to the instant petition, Eternal
complied by submitting a letter dated December 29, 1982,4
containing a list of insurable balances of its lot buyers for
October 1982. One of those included in the list as “new
business” was a certain John Chuang. His balance of
payments was PhP 100,000. On August 2, 1984, Chuang
died.
Eternal sent a letter dated August 20, 19845 to
Philamlife, which served as an insurance claim for
Chuang’s death. Attached to the claim were the following
documents: (1) Chuang’s Certificate of Death; (2)
Identification Certificate stating that Chuang is a
naturalized Filipino Citizen; (3) Certificate of Claimant; (4)
Certificate of Attending Physician; and (5) Assured’s
Certificate.
In reply, Philamlife wrote Eternal a letter on November
12, 1984,6 requiring Eternal to submit the following
documents relative to its insurance claim for Chuang’s
death: (1) Certificate of Claimant (with form attached); (2)
Assured’s Certificate (with form attached); (3) Application
for Insurance accomplished and signed by the insured,
Chuang, while still
_______________
3 Id., at p. 58.
4 Id., at p. 139.
5 Id., at p. 160.
6 Id., at p. 162.

living; and (4) Statement of Account showing the unpaid

balance of Chuang before his death.
Eternal transmitted the required documents through a
letter dated November 14, 1984,7 which was received by
Philamlife on November 15, 1984.
After more than a year, Philamlife had not furnished
Eternal with any reply to the latter’s insurance claim. This
prompted Eternal to demand from Philamlife the payment
of the claim for PhP 100,000 on April 25, 1986.8
In response to Eternal’s demand, Philamlife denied
Eternal’s insurance claim in a letter dated May 20, 1986,9 a
portion of which reads:
“The deceased was 59 years old when he entered into Contract

#9558 and 9529 with Eternal Gardens Memorial Park in October
1982 for the total maximum insurable amount of P100,000.00
each. No application for Group Insurance was submitted in our
office prior to his death on August 2, 1984.
In accordance with our Creditor’s Group Life Policy No. P-1920,
under Evidence of Insurability provision, “a declaration of good
health shall be required for all Lot Purchasers as party of the
application.” We cite further the provision on Effective Date of
Coverage under the policy which states that “there shall be no
insurance if the application is not approved by the Company.”
Since no application had been submitted by the Insured/Assured,
prior to his death, for our approval but was submitted instead on
November 15, 1984, after his death, Mr. John Uy Chuang was not
covered under the Policy. We wish to point out that Eternal
Gardens being the Assured was a party to the Contract and was
therefore aware of these pertinent provisions.
With regard to our acceptance of premiums, these do not connote
our approval per se of the insurance coverage but are held by us in
trust for the payor until the prerequisites for insurance coverage
shall
_______________
7 Id., at p. 163.
8 Id., at p. 164.
9 Id., at p. 165.
VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 7

have been met. We will however, return all the premiums which
have been paid in behalf of John Uy Chuang.”
Consequently, Eternal filed a case before the Makati

City Regional Trial Court (RTC) for a sum of money
against Philamlife, docketed as Civil Case No. 14736. The
trial court decided in favor of Eternal, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of Plaintiff ETERNAL, against Defendant
PHILAMLIFE, ordering the Defendant PHILAMLIFE, to pay the
sum of P100,000.00, representing the proceeds of the Policy of
John Uy Chuang, plus legal rate of interest, until fully paid; and,
to pay the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.”
The RTC found that Eternal submitted Chuang’s

application for insurance which he accomplished before his
death, as testified to by Eternal’s witness and evidenced by
the letter dated December 29, 1982, stating, among others:
“Encl: Phil-Am Life Insurance Application Forms & Cert.”10
It further ruled that due to Philamlife’s inaction from the
submission of the requirements of the group insurance on
December 29, 1982 to Chuang’s death on August 2, 1984,
as well as Philamlife’s acceptance of the premiums during
the same period, Philamlife was deemed to have approved
Chuang’s application. The RTC said that since the contract
is a group life insurance, once proof of death is submitted,
payment must follow.
Philamlife appealed to the CA, which ruled, thus:
“WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Makati in Civil Case No. 57810 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
and the complaint is DISMISSED. No costs.
_______________
10 Rollo, p. 44.

SO ORDERED.”11
The CA based its Decision on the factual finding that

Chuang’s application was not enclosed in Eternal’s letter
dated December 29, 1982. It further ruled that the non-

accomplishment of the submitted application form violated
Section 26 of the Insurance Code. Thus, the CA concluded,
there being no application form, Chuang was not covered
by Philamlife’s insurance.
Hence, we have this petition with the following grounds:
“The Honorable Court of Appeals has decided a question

of substance, not therefore determined by this Honorable
Court, or has decided it in a way not in accord with law or
with the applicable jurisprudence, in holding that:
I. The application for insurance was not duly submitted
to respondent PhilamLife before the death of John
Chuang;
II. There was no valid insurance coverage; and
III. Reversing and setting aside the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court dated May 29, 1996.
The Court’s Ruling
As a general rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and

will not re-examine factual issues raised before the CA and
first level courts, considering their findings of facts are
conclusive and binding on this Court. However, such rule is
subject to exceptions, as enunciated in Sampayan v. Court
of Appeals:
“(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on

speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3)
when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when
the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its
findings the [CA] went beyond the issues of the case, or its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the
_______________
11 Id., at p. 54.
VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 9

appellee; (7) when the findings [of the CA] are

contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact
are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion.”12
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case, the factual findings of the RTC were

reversed by the CA; thus, this Court may review them.
Eternal claims that the evidence that it presented before
the trial court supports its contention that it submitted a
copy of the insurance application of Chuang before his
death. In Eternal’s letter dated December 29, 1982, a list of
insurable interests of buyers for October 1982 was
attached, including Chuang in the list of new businesses.
Eternal added it was noted at the bottom of said letter that
the corresponding “Phil-Am Life Insurance Application
Forms & Cert.” were enclosed in the letter that was
apparently received by Philamlife on January 15, 1983.
Finally, Eternal alleged that it provided a copy of the
insurance application which was signed by Chuang himself
and executed before his death.
On the other hand, Philamlife claims that the evidence
presented by Eternal is insufficient, arguing that Eternal
must present evidence showing that Philamlife received a
copy of Chuang’s insurance application.
The evidence on record supports Eternal’s position.
The fact of the matter is, the letter dated December 29,
1982, which Philamlife stamped as received, states that the
insurance forms for the attached list of burial lot buyers
were attached to the letter. Such stamp of receipt has the
effect of acknowledging receipt of the letter together with
the attach-
_______________
12 G.R. No. 156360, January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 220, 228-229.
10


ments. Such receipt is an admission by Philamlife against

its own interest.13 The burden of evidence has shifted to
Philamlife, which must prove that the letter did not
contain Chuang’s insurance application. However,
Philamlife failed to do so; thus, Philamlife is deemed to
have received Chuang’s insurance application.
To reiterate, it was Philamlife’s bounden duty to make
sure that before a transmittal letter is stamped as received,
the contents of the letter are correct and accounted for.
Philamlife’s allegation that Eternal’s witnesses ran out
of credibility and reliability due to inconsistencies is
groundless. The trial court is in the best position to
determine the reliability and credibility of the witnesses,
because it has the opportunity to observe firsthand the
witnesses’ demeanor, conduct, and attitude. Findings of the
trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on
the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of
weight and substance have been overlooked,
14
misapprehended, or misinterpreted, that, if considered,
might affect the result of the case.15
An examination of the testimonies of the witnesses
mentioned by Philamlife, however, reveals no overlooked
facts of substance and value.
Philamlife primarily claims that Eternal did not even
know where the original insurance application of Chuang
was, as shown by the testimony of Edilberto Mendoza:
Atty. Arevalo:
Q Where is the original of the application form which is required in case
of new coverage?
_______________
13 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 26.
14 People v. Jaberto, G.R. No. 128147, May 12, 1999, 307 SCRA 93, 102.
15 People v. Oliquino, G.R. No. 171314, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 579, 588.
11
VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 11

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Philippine American
Life Insurance Company
[Mendoza:]
A It is [a] standard operating procedure for the new client to fill up two
copies of this form and the original of this is submitted to Philamlife
together with the monthly remittances and the second copy is

remained or retained with the marketing department of Eternal
Gardens.
Atty. Miranda:
We move to strike out the answer as it is not responsive as counsel is
merely asking for the location and does not [ask] for the number of
copy.
Atty. Arevalo:
Q Where is the original?
[Mendoza:]
A As far as I remember I do not know where the original but when I
submitted with that payment together with the new clients all the
originals I see to it before I sign the transmittal letter the originals are
attached therein.16
In other words, the witness admitted not knowing where

the original insurance application was, but believed that
the application was transmitted to Philamlife as an
attachment to a transmittal letter.
As to the seeming inconsistencies between the testimony
of Manuel Cortez on whether one or two insurance
application forms were accomplished and the testimony of
Mendoza on who actually filled out the application form,
these are minor inconsistencies that do not affect the
credibility of the witnesses. Thus, we ruled in People v.
Paredes that minor inconsistencies are too trivial to affect
the credibility of witnesses, and these may even serve to
strengthen their credibility as these negate any suspicion
that the testimonies have been rehearsed.17
We reiterated the above ruling in Merencillo v. People:
_______________
16 TSN, September 13, 1990, p. 8.

17 G.R. No. 136105, October 23, 2001, 368 SCRA 102, 108.
12

“Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the

essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or
reflect on the witnesses’ honesty. The test is whether the
testimonies agree on essential facts and whether the respective
versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other so
as to make a consistent and coherent whole.”18
In the present case, the number of copies of the

insurance application that Chuang executed is not at issue,
neither is whether the insurance application presented by
Eternal has been falsified. Thus, the inconsistencies
pointed out by Philamlife are minor and do not affect the
credibility of Eternal’s witnesses.
However, the question arises as to whether Philamlife
assumed the risk of loss without approving the application.
This question must be answered in the affirmative.
As earlier stated, Philamlife and Eternal entered into an
agreement denominated as Creditor Group Life Policy No.
P-1920 dated December 10, 1980. In the policy, it is
provided that:
EFFECTIVE DATE OF BENEFIT.

The insurance of any eligible Lot Purchaser shall be effective
on the date he contracts a loan with the Assured. However, there
shall be no insurance if the application of the Lot Purchaser is not
approved by the Company.
An examination of the above provision would show

ambiguity between its two sentences. The first sentence
appears to state that the insurance coverage of the clients
of Eternal already became effective upon contracting a loan
with Eternal while the second sentence appears to require
Philamlife to approve the insurance contract before the
same can become effective.
_______________
18 G.R. Nos. 142369-70, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 31, 43.
13
VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 13

It must be remembered that an insurance contract is a

contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in
favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer in
order to safeguard the latter’s interest. Thus, in Malayan
Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, this Court held
that:
“Indemnity and liability insurance policies are construed in

accordance with the general rule of resolving any ambiguity
therein in favor of the insured, where the contract or policy is

prepared by the insurer. A contract of insurance, being a
contract of adhesion, par excellence, any ambiguity therein
should be resolved against the insurer; in other words, it
should be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly
against the insurer. 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.”19
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the more recent case of Philamcare Health Systems,

Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we reiterated the above ruling,
stating that:
“When the terms of insurance contract contain limitations on

liability, courts should construe them in such a way as to preclude
the insurer from non-compliance with his obligation. Being a
contract of adhesion, the terms of an insurance contract are to be
construed strictly against the party which prepared the contract,
the insurer. By reason of the exclusive control of the insurance
company over the terms and phraseology of the insurance
contract, ambiguity must be strictly interpreted against the
insurer and liberally in favor of the insured, especially to avoid
forfeiture.”20
Clearly, the vague contractual provision, in Creditor

Group Life Policy No. P-1920 dated December 10, 1980,
must be construed in favor of the insured and in favor of
the effectivity of the insurance contract.
_______________
19 G.R. No. 119599, March 20, 1997, 270 SCRA 242, 254.
20 G.R. No. 125678, March 18, 2002, 379 SCRA 356, 366.
14

On the other hand, the seemingly conflicting provisions

must be harmonized to mean that upon a party’s purchase
of a memorial lot on installment from Eternal, an
insurance contract covering the lot purchaser is created
and the same is effective, valid, and binding until
terminated by Philamlife by disapproving the insurance
application. The second sentence of Creditor Group Life

Policy No. P-1920 on the Effective Date of Benefit is in the
nature of a resolutory condition which would lead to the
cessation of the insurance contract. Moreover, the mere
inaction of the insurer on the insurance application must
not work to prejudice the insured; it cannot be interpreted
as a termination of the insurance contract. The termination
of the insurance contract by the insurer must be explicit
and unambiguous.
As a final note, to characterize the insurer and the
insured as contracting parties on equal footing is
inaccurate at best. Insurance contracts are wholly prepared
by the insurer with vast amounts of experience in the
industry purposefully used to its advantage. More often
than not, insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion
containing technical terms and conditions of the industry,
confusing if at all understandable to laypersons, that are
imposed on those who wish to avail of insurance. As such,
insurance contracts are imbued with public interest that
must be considered whenever the rights and obligations of
the insurer and the insured are to be delineated. Hence, in
order to protect the interest of insurance applicants,
insurance companies must be obligated to act with haste
upon insurance applications, to either deny or approve the
same, or otherwise be bound to honor the application as a
valid, binding, and effective insurance contract.21
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The November
26, 2004 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 57810 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The May 29, 1996 Decision
of the Makati
_______________
21 R. E. Keeton & A. I. Widiss, Insurance Law—A Guide to

Fundamental Principles, Legal Doctrines and Commercial Practices 77-78.
15
VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 15

City RTC, Branch 138 is MODIFIED. Philamlife is hereby

ORDERED:
(1) To pay Eternal the amount of PhP100,000
representing the proceeds of the Life Insurance Policy of
Chuang;
(2) To pay Eternal legal interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum of PhP100,000 from the time of
extrajudicial demand by Eternal until Philamlife’s receipt
of the May 29, 1996 RTC Decision on June 17, 1996;
(3) To pay Eternal legal interest at the rate of twelve
percent (12%) per annum of PhP 100,000 from June 17,
1996 until full payment of this award; and
(4) To pay Eternal attorney’s fees in the amount of
PhP10,000.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio-Morales (Actg. Chairperson), Tinga, Brion and

Chico-Nazario,** JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.
Notes.—The mere fact that neither party signs a

contract does not prevent it from assuming legal existence;
consent may either be express or implied; once there is
manifestation of the concurrence of the parties’ wills,
written or otherwise, the stage of negotiation is terminated
and the contract is finally perfected. (Luzon Development
Bank vs. Angeles, 497 SCRA 264 [2006])
A party to a contract cannot deny its validity after
enjoying its benefits without outrage to one’s sense of
justice and fairness. (Development Bank of the Philippines
vs. Court of Appeals, 494 SCRA 25 [2006])
——o0o——
_______________
** Additional member as per February 6, 2008 raffle.
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park V Philamlife Insurance Company Full Text

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park V Philamlife Insurance Company Full Text

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

9/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 551

G.R. No. 166245. April 9, 2008.*

ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK

Evidence; Witnesses; We ruled in People v. Paredes, 368 SCRA

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Philippine

American Life Insurance Company

these may even serve to strengthen their credibility as these

VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 3

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Philippine

insurer and the insured are to be delineated.—To characterize

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

VELASCO, JR., J.:

1 Rollo, pp. 45-54. Penned by Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

American Life Insurance Company

2 Records, pp. 57-62.

VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 5

smaller. Such benefit shall be paid to the Assured if the Lot

Eternal was required under the policy to submit to

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

living; and (4) Statement of Account showing the unpaid

“The deceased was 59 years old when he entered into Contract

VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 7

Consequently, Eternal filed a case before the Makati

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

The RTC found that Eternal submitted Chuang’s

“WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The CA based its Decision on the factual finding that

dated December 29, 1982. It further ruled that the non-

“The Honorable Court of Appeals has decided a question

The Court’s Ruling

As a general rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and

“(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on

VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 9

appellee; (7) when the findings [of the CA] are

In the instant case, the factual findings of the RTC were

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Philippine

ments. Such receipt is an admission by Philamlife against

13 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 26.

VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 11

together with the monthly remittances and the second copy is

In other words, the witness admitted not knowing where

16 TSN, September 13, 1990, p. 8.

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the

In the present case, the number of copies of the

EFFECTIVE DATE OF BENEFIT.

An examination of the above provision would show

VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 13

It must be remembered that an insurance contract is a

“Indemnity and liability insurance policies are construed in

therein in favor of the insured, where the contract or policy is

In the more recent case of Philamcare Health Systems,

“When the terms of insurance contract contain limitations on

Clearly, the vague contractual provision, in Creditor

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On the other hand, the seemingly conflicting provisions

application. The second sentence of Creditor Group Life

21 R. E. Keeton & A. I. Widiss, Insurance Law—A Guide to

VOL. 551, APRIL 9, 2008 15