WHEN… IS IT PERFECTED?

• IT IS PERFECTED THE MOMENT THERE IS A MEETING OF THE MINDS WITH THE RESPECT TO THE OBJECT
AND THE CAUSE OR CONSIDERATION
COGNITION THEORY

• THE ACCEPTANCE IS CONSIDERED TO EFFECTIVELY BIND THE ONE MAKING THE OFFER ONLY FROM THE
TIME IT CAME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE.
WHEN… IS IT NOT BINDING?

• THE MERE DELAY IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE INSURANCE APPLICATION WILL NOT RESULT IN BINDING
CONTRACT.
 HOW IS IT PERFECTED:?
CASE: GR 112329 – PEREZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS

• “A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE, LIKE OTHER CONTRACTS, MUST BE ASSENTED TO BY BOTH PARTIES EITHER
IN PERSON OR BY THEIR AGENTS. SO LONG AS AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE HAS NOT BEEN EITHER
ACCEPTED OR REJECTED, IT IS MERELY AN OFFER OR PROPOSAL TO MAKE A CONTRACT.…THERE CAN BE NO
CONTRACT OF INSURANCE UNLESS THE MINDS OF THE PARTIES HAVE MET IN AGREEMENT”
WHAT…ARE THE IMPORTANCE OF DELIVERY
OF THE POLICY?

• THE POLICY IS THE PROOF OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT.
• THE POLICY IS THE PROOF THAT THE INSURER ACCEPTED THE CONTRACT.
• IT MAY BE THE RECKONING POINT FOR THE COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
WHAT… IS A COVER NOTE?

• A CONCISE AND TEMPORARY WRITTEN CONTRACT ISSUED TO THE INSURER THROUGH ITS DULY
AUTHORIZED AGENT EMBODYING THE PRINCIPAL TERMS OF AN EXPECTED POLICY OF INSURANCE.
• IT IS INTENDED TO GIVE TEMPORARY INSURANCE PROTECTION COVERAGE TO THE APPLICANT PENDING
THE ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF HIS APPLICATION.
• ITS DURATION SHOULD NOT EXCEED 60 DAYS UNLESS A LONGER PERIOD IS APPROVED BY INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER.
WHAT.. IS A POLICY?

• WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS WHERE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT ARE SET FORTH.
• THIS IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PERFECTION OF THE CONTRACT, YET THE LAW PROVIDES THAT NO
POLICY SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS IT IS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE INSURANCE COMMISSION.
WHAT… ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE POLICY?
• PARTIES
• AMOUNT OF INSURANCE EXCEPT IN OPEN RUNNING POLICY.
• RATE OF PREMIUM
• PROPERTY OR LIFE INSURED.
• INTEREST OF THE INSURED IN THE PROPERTY IF HE IS NOT THE OWNER.
• RISK INSURED AGAINST.
• THE PERIOD OF THE INSURANCE.
CASE: TIBAY VS. CA (G.R. NO. 119655)
• “THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY CONSTITUTE THE MEASURE OF THE INSURER'S LIABILITY. IN THE
ABSENCE OF STATUTORY PROHIBITION TO THE CONTRARY, INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE THE SAME
RIGHTS AS INDIVIDUALS TO LIMIT THEIR LIABILITY AND TO IMPOSE WHATEVER CONDITIONS THEY DEEM
BEST UPON THEIR OBLIGATIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY. 17 THE VALIDITY OF THESE
LIMITATIONS IS BY LAW PASSED UPON BY THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER WHO IS EMPOWERED TO
APPROVE ALL FORMS OF POLICIES, CERTIFICATES OR CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE WHICH INSURERS
INTEND TO ISSUE OR DELIVER. THAT THE POLICY CONTRACT IN THE CASE AT BENCH WAS APPROVED AND
ALLOWED ISSUANCE SIMPLY REAFFIRMS THE VALIDITY OF SUCH POLICY, PARTICULARLY THE PROVISION
IN QUESTION.”
WHAT… IS A RIDER?

• PRINTED STIPULATIONS USUALLY ATTACHED TO THE POLICY BECAUSE THEY CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL
STIPULATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
• IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN A RIDER AND THE PRINTED STIPULATIONS IN THE POLICY, THE RIDER
PREVAILS, AS BEING A MORE DELIBERATE EXPRESSION OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE CONTRACTING
PARTIES
WHAT… ARE THE KINDS OF POLICY ISSUED
BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY?

• OPEN POLICY
• VALUED POLICY
• RUNNING POLICY
WHEN… SHOULD A POLICY BE CANCELLED?

• WHEN THE INSURED DID NOT PAY THE PREMIUMS.

• WHEN THE INSURED WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME OUT OF ACTS INCREASING THE HAZARD OF THE INSURE
• WHEN THERE IS FRAUD IN THE PART OF THE INSURED
• WHEN PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY INSURED RENDERING IT UNINSURABLE
• WHEN THERE IS A VIOLATION TO THE INSURANCE CODE.
CASE: MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION VS. ABAN (GR 175666)
• “THE "INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE" IS A PROVISION IN LAW THAT AFTER A POLICY OF LIFE INSURANCE
MADE PAYABLE ON THE DEATH OF THE INSURED SHALL HAVE BEEN IN FORCE DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE
INSURED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUE OR OF ITS LAST REINSTATEMENT,
THE INSURER CANNOT PROVE THAT THE POLICY IS VOID AB INITIO OR IS RESCINDIBLE BY REASON OF
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION OF THE INSURED OR HIS AGENT. THE PURPOSE OF
THE LAW IS TO GIVE PROTECTION TO THE INSURED OR HIS BENEFICIARY BY LIMITING THE RESCINDING
OF THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE ON THE GROUND OF FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OR
MISREPRESENTATION TO A PERIOD OF ONLY TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY OR ITS
LAST REINSTATEMENT.”
CASE: AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY VS. CHUA (G.R. NO. 130421)
• “IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PETITIONER WAS DECEIVED BY RESPONDENT BY THE LATTER'S NON-
DISCLOSURE OF THE OTHER INSURANCE CONTRACTS WHEN PETITIONER ACTUALLY HAD PRIOR
KNOWLEDGE THEREOF. PETITIONER'S LOSS ADJUSTER HAD KNOWN ALL ALONG OF THE OTHER EXISTING
INSURANCE CONTRACTS, YET, HE DID NOT USE THAT AS BASIS FOR HIS RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
THE LOSS ADJUSTER, BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER, IS DEEMED A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LATTER
WHOSE AWARENESS OF THE OTHER INSURANCE CONTRACTS BINDS PETITIONER. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD
THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE "OTHER INSURANCE" CLAUSE BY RESPONDENT.”
CONSTANTINO VS. ASIA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY (G.R. NO. L-1669)
• AFTER PERUSING THE INSURANCE ACT, WE ARE FIRMLY PERSUADED THAT THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS IS
SUCH A VITAL DEFENSE OF INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING, SAID ACT NO. 2427
EXPRESSLY PRESERVED IT, BY PROVIDING THAT AFTER THE POLICY SHALL HAVE BEEN IN FORCE FOR TWO
YEARS, IT SHALL BECOME INCONTESTABLE (I.E. THE INSURER SHALL HAVE NO DEFENSE) EXCEPT FOR FRAUD,
NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, AND MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR (SEC. 184 [B], INSURANCE
ACT). AND WHEN CONGRESS RECENTLY AMENDED THIS SECTION (REP. ACT NO. 171), THE DEFENSE OF FRAUD
WAS ELIMINATED, WHILE THE DEFENSE OF NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS WAS PRESERVED. THUS THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE UNDERTAKING TO PAY PREMIUMS AND THE HIGH IMPORTANCE OF THE
DEFENSE OF NON-PAYMENT THEREOF, WAS SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZE
WHAT… ARE THE TYPES OF INSURANCE?

•GOVERNMENT INSURANCE
•PRIVATE INSURANCE
GOVERNMENT INSURANCE

• ALSO CALLED SOCIAL INSURANCE CONTRACTS.

• COMPULSORY IN NATURE
• DESIGNED TO PROVIDE MINIMUM ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR LARGE GROUP OF PERSON.
• THIS INCLUDES THE SSS AND GSIS
CASE: GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM VS JUM ANGEL (G.R. NO. 166863)
• THERE IS A COMPETING, YET EQUALLY VITAL INTEREST TO HEED IN PASSING UPON UNDESERVING CLAIMS
FOR COMPENSATION. IT IS WELL TO REMEMBER THAT IF DISEASES OR DEATH NOT INTENDED BY THE LAW
TO BE COMPENSATED ARE INADVERTENTLY OR RECKLESSLY INCLUDED, THE INTEGRITY OF THE STATE
INSURANCE FUND IS ENDANGERED. COMPASSION FOR THE VICTIMS OF DISEASES NOT COVERED BY THE
LAW IGNORES THE NEED TO SHOW A GREATER CONCERN FOR THE TRUST FUND TO WHICH THE TENS OF
MILLIONS OF WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES LOOK TO FOR COMPENSATION WHENEVER COVERED
ACCIDENTS, DISEASES AND DEATHS OCCUR.
PRIVATE INSURANCE

• INSURANCE OFFERED BY THE PRIVATE SECTORS KNOWN AS INSURERS.

• OPTIONAL IN NATURE.
• A RISK REDUCING DEVICE THAT COMBINES AS SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF EXPOSURE UNITS TO MAKE
INDIVIDUAL LOSSES COLLECTIVELY PREDICTABLE.
• THIS INCLUDES, LIFE INSURANCES, NON-LIFE INSURANCES (PROPERTY), LIABILITY INSURANCE,
MICROINSURANCE AND SURETY.
WHAT… IS A LIFE INSURANCE?

• A CONTRACT BETWEEN AN INSURER AND A POLICYHOLDER IN WHICH THE INSURER GUARANTEES

PAYMENT OF A DEATH BENEFIT TO NAMED BENEFICIARIES UPON THE DEATH OF THE INSURED
WHAT… ARE THE CLASSIFICATION OF LIFE
INSURANCE?

• TERM INSURANCE
• WHOLE LIFE INSURANCE
• INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
• ORDINARY LIFE
• ENDOWMENT
CASE: SUNLIFE VS SABIYA (G.R. NO. 211212)

• “IN THE PRESENT CASE, SUN LIFE ISSUED ATTY. JESUS JR.'S POLICY ON FEBRUARY 5, 2001. THUS, IT HAS
TWO YEARS FROM ITS ISSUANCE, TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY WHETHER THE POLICY WAS OBTAINED BY
FRAUD, CONCEALMENT, OR MISREPRESENTATION. UPON THE DEATH OF ATTY. JESUS JR., HOWEVER, ON MAY
11, 2001, OR A MERE THREE MONTHS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, SUN LIFE LOSES ITS RIGHT TO
RESCIND THE POLICY. AS DISCUSSED IN MANILA BANKERS, THE DEATH OF THE INSURED WITHIN THE
TWO-YEAR PERIOD WILL RENDER THE RIGHT OF THE INSURER TO RESCIND THE POLICY NUGATORY. AS
SUCH, THE INCONTESTABILITY PERIOD WILL NOW SET IN”
WHAT… IS A NON-LIFE INSURANCE?

• ALSO CALLED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE, IS A TYPE OF COVERAGE THAT IS VERY COMMON
AND COVERS BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS.
• IT PROTECTS THEM, MONETARILY, FROM DISASTER BY PROVIDING MONEY IN THE EVENT OF A FINANCIAL
LOSS.
WHAT… ARE THE KINDS OF NON-LIFE
INSURANCE?

• FIRE INSURANCE
• MARINE INSURANCE
• CASUALTY INSURANCE
MALAYAN INSURANCE VS. PAP CO., LTD (G.R.
NO. 200784)

“CONSIDERING THAT THE ORIGINAL POLICY WAS RENEWED ON AN "AS IS BASIS," IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
RENEWAL POLICY CARRIED WITH IT THE SAME STIPULATIONS AND LIMITATIONS... THERE BEING AN
UNCONSENTED REMOVAL, THE TRANSFER WAS AT PAP’S OWN RISK. CONSEQUENTLY, IT MUST SUFFER THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRE...”
WHAT… IS LIABILITY INSURANCE?

• AN INSURANCE THAT PROVIDES PROTECTION AGAINST CLAIMS RESULTING FROM INJURIES AND DAMAGE
TO PEOPLE AND/OR PROPERTY
WHAT… IS CTPL?

• AN INSURANCE PROTECTS THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE FROM FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS TO ANYONE WHO
IS INJURED OR KILLED BY THE INSURED VEHICLE.
CASE: STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY,
INCORPORATED VS INTERPACIFIC CONTAINER
SERVICES (G .R. NO. 194328)
• “CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER; IT MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE FACT OF INTOXICATION DURING THE
TRIAL. ASIDE FROM THE MEDICO LEGAL CERTIFICATE AND THE PAGPAPATUNAY, WHICH WERE STRIPPED OF EVIDENTIARY
VALUE BECAUSE OF THE DUBIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE OBTAINED, THE PETITIONER DID NOT
ADDUCE OTHER PROOF TO JUSTIFY THE AVOIDANCE OF THE POLICY. IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE RTC DOUBTED THE
AUTHENTICITY OF THE MEDICO LEGAL CERTIFICATE BECAUSE OF THE ATTENDANT ALTERATION AND TAMPERING ON THE FACE
OF THE DOCUMENT. IN ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE APPELLATE COURT REITERATED THE EVIDENTIARY
RULE THAT THE PARTY ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE
THE SAME. THE EVIDENT TAMPERING OF THE MEDICO LEGAL CERTIFICATE NECESSITATED THE PRESENTATION BY THE
PETITIONER OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BUTTRESS HIS CLAIM. FOR INSTANCE, PETITIONER COULD HAVE ADDUCED
AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESSES WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT TO ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT THE DRIVER
WAS INTOXICATED. IT DID NOT. UPON THE OTHER HAND, RESPONDENTS DULY ESTABLISHED THEIR RIGHT TO CLAIM THE
PROCEEDS OF A VALIDLY SUBSISTING CONTRACT OF INSURANCE. SUCH CONTRACT WAS NEVER DENIED.”
WHAT… IS SURETY?

A VERY SPECIALIZED LINE OF INSURANCE THAT IS CREATED WHENEVER ONE PARTY GUARANTEES
PERFORMANCE OF AN OBLIGATION BY ANOTHER PARTY. THERE ARE THREE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT: ·
THE PRINCIPAL IS THE PARTY THAT UNDERTAKES THE OBLIGATION.
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. V.
REPUBLIC-ASAHI GLASS CORPORATION (G.R. NO.
147561)
• “THE SURETY'S OBLIGATION IS NOT AN ORIGINAL AND DIRECT ONE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OWN
ACT, BUT MERELY ACCESSORY OR COLLATERAL TO THE OBLIGATION CONTRACTED BY THE PRINCIPAL.
NEVERTHELESS, ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT OF A SURETY IS IN ESSENCE SECONDARY ONLY TO A VALID
PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION, HIS LIABILITY TO THE CREDITOR OR PROMISEE OF THE PRINCIPAL IS SAID TO BE
DIRECT, PRIMARY AND ABSOLUTE; IN OTHER WORDS, HE IS DIRECTLY AND EQUALLY BOUND WITH THE
PRINCIPAL”
WHO… ARE THE PARTIES IN AN INSURANCE
CONTRACT?
Insured

Beneficiary Insurer
WHO… IS AN INSURED?
• THE ONE WHO ENTERS INTO AN INSURANCE CONTRACT AND THE OWNER OF THE POLICY.
• THE PERSON, GROUP, OR ORGANIZATION WHOSE PROPERTY, HEALTH, LIFE IS COVERED BY AN INSURANCE
CONTRACT.
• WHO… IS AN ASSURED?
• THE PERSON WHO TOOK INSURANCE ON ANOTHER’S LIFE.
WHAT… ARE THE RIGHTS OF A POLICY
HOLDER?
• RIGHTS TO A FINANCIALLY SOUND AND VIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• RIGHTS TO ACCESS THE COMPANY’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
• RIGHTS TO BE INFORMED OF THE LICENSING STATUS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY, ITS INTERMEDIARIES AND AGENTS.
• RIGHTS TO BE OFFERED A DULY APPROVED INSURANCE PRODUCT.
• RIGHTS TO BE INFORMED OF THE BENEFITS, EXCLUSIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE POLICY
• RIGHT TO RECEIVE A POLICY.
• RIGHT OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
• RIGHTS TO EFFICIENT SERVICE
• RIGHTS TO PROMPT AND FAIR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
• RIGHTS TO SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM INSURANCE COMMISSION.
INSULAR LIFE VS. KHU – GR NO. 195176
“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”
WHO… IS AN INSURER?

• THE PARTY WHO ASSUMES OR ACCEPTS THE RISK OF LOSS AND UNDERTAKES FOR A CONSIDERATION TO
INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OR TO PAY HIM A CERTAIN SUM ON THE HAPPENING OF A SPECIFIED
CONTINGENCY OR EVENT.
WHO… CAN BE AN INSURER?

• PROFESSIONAL REINSURER
• FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANIES
• PARTNERSHIPS
• ASSOCIATIONS
• COOPERATIVE
WHAT… IS REQUIRED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE
BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES?

• A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY COMING FROM THE INSURANCE COMMISSION.

WHAT… ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE GRANTED
WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY?

• POSSESSED THE REQUIRED CAPITAL ASSET

• CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE COMMISSION
WHEN… IS THE EXPIRATION OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY?

• THE CERTIFICATE WOULD EXPIRE ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 3 YEARS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF ITS
ISSUANCE.
WHO… IS A BENEFICIARY?

• THE DESIGNATED PERSON TO RECEIVE THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY WHEN RISK ATTACHES. HE CAN BE
THE SAME PERSON AS THE INSURED OR ANOTHER THIRD PARTY.
• THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY ARE NOT PART OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES, BUT THEY CAN FILE AN ACTION
AGAINST THE INSURER IN CASE OF LOSS.
• THEY BENEFICIARY IN THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS GENERALLY REVOCABLE.
WHEN… DOES THE BENEFICIARY OF THE
CONTRACT BECOMES IRREVOCABLE?

WHEN EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THE POLICY.

WHEN… DOES THE RIGHTS OF THE
BENEFICIARY FORFEITED?

WHEN HE IS INVOLVED AS PRINCIPAL, ACCOMPLICE OR ACCESSORY IN

WILLFULLY BRINGING DEATH TO THE INSURED.
WHAT… ARE THE GROUND FOR
DISQUALIFICATION OF BENEFICIARY?

• MADE BY PUBLIC OFFICER BY REASON OF HIS OFFICE.

• THE PERSON IS GUILTY OF CONCUBINAGE OR ADULTERY
HEIRS OF LORETO C. MARAMAG VS. EVA
VERNA DE GUZMAN (G.R. NO. 181132)

• …UNDER ARTICLE 739 OF THE CIVIL CODE OR BY THE INSURERS THEMSELVES FOR REASONS BASED ON
THE INSURANCE CONTRACTS, MUST BE AWARDED TO THE SAID ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, THE
DESIGNATED BENEFICIARIES, TO THE EXCLUSION OF PETITIONERS. 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.”
CASE: PHILMACARE VS. CA (GR 125678)

“THE HEALTH CARE AGREEMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF A CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY. HENCE, PAYMENT SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE PARTY WHO INCURRED THE EXPENSES. IT IS NOT CONTROVERTED THAT RESPONDENT PAID
ALL THE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL EXPENSES…”
CASE: GALLARDO VS MORALLES (GR L
12189)
THE OBJECT OF THIS STATUTE WAS TO ENABLE A HUSBAND, WHEN DEATH DEPRIVED WIFE AND CHILDREN OF
HIS SUPPORT, TO SECURE THEM FROM WANT AND TO PREVENT THEM FROM BECOMING A CHARGE UPON
THE PUBLIC. NECESSITIES OF THE WIFE AND CHILDREN AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST ARE NONE THE LESS IF
THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY ACCIDENT RATHER THAN BY DISEASE. THE INTENT OF
THE LEGISLATURE IN THE ENACTMENT OF THIS STATUTE WOULD NOT BE ADVANCED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE LAW UPON WHICH THE PETITIONERS INSIST.”
ALPHA INSURANCE AND SURETY CO VS
CASTOR (GR 198174)
• IT IS A BASIC RULE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS THAT THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT ARE TO BE
CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO THE SENSE AND MEANING OF THE TERMS WHICH THE PARTIES THERETO
HAVE USED. IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICIES, THE EVIDENT INTENTION OF THE
CONTRACTING PARTIES … WHEN THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY ARE AMBIGUOUS, EQUIVOCAL
OR UNCERTAIN, SUCH THAT THE PARTIES THEMSELVES DISAGREE ABOUT THE MEANING OF PARTICULAR
PROVISIONS, THE POLICY WILL BE CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE ASSURED
AND STRICTLY AGAINST THE INSURER.