[G.R. No. 124520. August 18, 1997]

Spouses NILO CHA and STELLA UY CHA, and UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.D E C I S I O NPADILLA, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to set aside a decision of respondent Court of Appeals.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

1. Petitioner-spouses Nilo Cha and Stella Uy-Cha, as lessees, entered into a lease contract with private respondent CKS Development Corporation (hereinafter CKS), as lessor, on 5 October 1988.

2. One of the stipulations of the one (1) year lease contract states:

18. x x x. The LESSEE shall not insure against fire the chattels, merchandise, textiles, goods and effects placed at any stall or store or space in the leased premises without first obtaining the written consent and approval of the LESSOR. If the LESSEE obtain(s) the insurance thereof without the consent of the LESSOR then the policy is deemed assigned and transferred to the LESSOR for its own benefit; x x x[1]

3. Notwithstanding the above stipulation in the lease contract, the Cha spouses insured against loss by fire their merchandise inside the leased premises for Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) with the United Insurance Co., Inc. (hereinafter United) without the written consent of private respondents CKS.

4. On the day that the lease contract was to expire, fire broke out inside the leased premises.

5. When CKS learned of the insurance earlier procured by the Cha spouses (without its consent), it wrote the insurer (United) a demand letter asking that the proceeds of the insurance contract (between the Cha spouses and United) be paid directly to CKS, based on its lease contract with Cha spouses.

6. United refused to pay CKS. Hence, the latter filed a complaint against the Cha spouses and United.

7. On 2 June 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Manila, rendered a decision* ordering therein defendant United to pay CKS the amount of P335,063.11 and defendant Cha spouses to pay P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, P20,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of suit.

8. On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals in CA GR CV No. 39328 rendered a decision** dated 11 January 1996, affirming the trial court decision, deleting however the awards for exemplary damages and attorneys fees. A motion for reconsideration by United was denied on 29 March 1996.

In the present petition, the following errors are assigned by petitioners to the Court of Appeals:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THAT THE STIPULATION IN THE CONTRACT OF LEASE TRANSFERRING THE PROCEEDS OF THE INSURANCE TO RESPONDENT IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO LAW, MORALS AND PUBLIC POLICY

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THE CONTRACT OF LEASE ENTERED INTO AS A CONTRACT OF ADHESION AND THEREFORE THE QUESTIONABLE PROVISION THEREIN TRANSFERRING THE PROCEEDS OF THE INSURANCE TO RESPONDENT MUST BE RULED OUT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO APPELLEE WHICH IS NOT PRIVY TO THE SAID POLICY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE INSURANCE LAW

IV

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY ON THE BASIS OF A STIPULATION WHICH IS VOID FOR BEING WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND FOR BEING TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE WILL OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.[2]

The core issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the aforequoted paragraph 18 of the lease contract entered into between CKS and the Cha spouses is valid insofar as it provides that any fire insurance policy obtained by the lessee (Cha spouses) over their merchandise inside the leased premises is deemed assigned or transferred to the lessor (CKS) if said policy is obtained without the prior written of the latter.

It is, of course, basic in the law on contracts that the stipulations contained in a contract cannot be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.[3]

Sec. 18 of the Insurance Code provides:

Sec. 18. No contract or policy of insurance on property shall be enforceable except for the benefit of some person having an insurable interest in the property insured.

A non-life insurance policy such as the fire insurance policy taken by petitioner-spouses over their merchandise is primarily a contract of indemnity. Insurable interest in the property insured must exist at the time the insurance takes effect and at the time the loss occurs.[4] The basis of such requirement of insurable interest in property insured is based on sound public policy: to prevent a person from taking out an insurance policy on property upon which he has no insurable interest and collecting the proceeds of said policy in case of loss of the property. In such a case, the contract of insurance is a mere wager which is void under Section 25 of the Insurance Code, which provides:

SECTION 25. Every stipulation in a policy of Insurance for the payment of loss, whether the person insured has or has not any interest in the property insured, or that the policy shall be received as proof of such interest, and every policy executed by way of gaming or wagering, is void.

In the present case, it cannot be denied that CKS has no insurable interest in the goods and merchandise inside the leased premises under the provisions of Section 17 of the Insurance Code which provide.

Section 17. The measure of an insurable interest in property is the extent to which the insured might be damnified by loss of injury thereof."

Therefore, respondent CKS cannot, under the Insurance Code a special law be validly a beneficiary of the fire insurance policy taken by the petitioner-spouses over their merchandise. This insurable interest over said merchandise remains with the insured, the Cha spouses. The automatic assignment of the policy to CKS under the provision of the lease contract previously quoted is void for being contrary to law and/or public policy. The proceeds of the fire insurance policy thus rightfully belong to the spouses Nilo Cha and Stella Uy-Cha (herein co-petitioners). The insurer (United) cannot be compelled to pay the proceeds of the fire insurance policy to a person (CKS) who has no insurable interest in the property insured.

The liability of the Cha spouses to CKS for violating their lease contract in that Cha spouses obtained a fire insurance policy over their own merchandise, without the consent of CKS, is a separate and distinct issue which we do not resolve in this case.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39328 is SET ASIDE and a new decision is hereby entered, awarding the proceeds of the fire insurance policy to petitioners Nilo Cha and Stella Uy-Cha.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 113899. October 13, 1999]

GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP., petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND MEDARDA V. LEUTERIO, respondents.D E C I S I O NQUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for review, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assails the Decision[1] dated May 17, 1993, of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution[2] dated January 4, 1994 in CA-G.R. CV No. 18341. The appellate court affirmed in toto the judgment of the Misamis Oriental Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, in an insurance claim filed by private respondent against Great Pacific Life Assurance Co. The dispositive portion of the trial courts decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered adjudging the defendant GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION as insurer under its Group policy No. G-1907, in relation to Certification B-18558 liable and ordered to pay to the DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES as creditor of the insured Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio, the amount of EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P86,200.00); dismissing the claims for damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses in the complaint and counterclaim, with costs against the defendant and dismissing the complaint in respect to the plaintiffs, other than the widow-beneficiary, for lack of cause of action.[3]

The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

A contract of group life insurance was executed between petitioner Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (hereinafter Grepalife) and Development Bank of the Philippines (hereinafter DBP). Grepalife agreed to insure the lives of eligible housing loan mortgagors of DBP.

On November 11, 1983, Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio, a physician and a housing debtor of DBP applied for membership in the group life insurance plan. In an application form, Dr. Leuterio answered questions concerning his health condition as follows:

7. Have you ever had, or consulted, a physician for a heart condition, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, lung, kidney or stomach disorder or any other physical impairment?

Answer: No. If so give details ___________.

8. Are you now, to the best of your knowledge, in good health?

Answer: [ x ] Yes [ ] No.[4]

On November 15, 1983, Grepalife issued Certificate No. B-18558, as insurance coverage of Dr. Leuterio, to the extent of his DBP mortgage indebtedness amounting to eighty-six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos.

On August 6, 1984, Dr. Leuterio died due to massive cerebral hemorrhage. Consequently, DBP submitted a death claim to Grepalife. Grepalife denied the claim alleging that Dr. Leuterio was not physically healthy when he applied for an insurance coverage on November 15, 1983. Grepalife insisted that Dr. Leuterio did not disclose he had been suffering from hypertension, which caused his death. Allegedly, such non-disclosure constituted concealment that justified the denial of the claim.

On October 20, 1986, the widow of the late Dr. Leuterio, respondent Medarda V. Leuterio, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, against Grepalife for Specific Performance with Damages.[5] During the trial, Dr. Hernando Mejia, who issued the death certificate, was called to testify. Dr. Mejias findings, based partly from the information given by the respondent widow, stated that Dr. Leuterio complained of headaches presumably due to high blood pressure. The inference was not conclusive because Dr. Leuterio was not autopsied, hence, other causes were not ruled out.

On February 22, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent widow and against Grepalife. On May 17, 1993, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial courts decision. Hence, the present petition. Petitioners interposed the following assigned errors:

"1. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT LIABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP) WHICH IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE FOR PAYMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF A MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF PLAINTIFFS HUSBAND WILFREDO LEUTERIO ONE OF ITS LOAN BORROWERS, INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT-APPELLANT [Petitioner Grepalife] FOR LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION.

2. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT OR NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT.

3. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO PAY TO DBP THE AMOUNT OF P86,200.00 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW MUCH WAS THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAYABLE TO DBP IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS GROUP INSURANCE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

4. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN - HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL INFORMATION ON THE PART OF WILFREDO LEUTERIO IN HIS APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PLAN BETWEEN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OF THE INSURANCE CLAIM ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF WILFREDO LEUTERIO.[6]

Synthesized below are the assigned errors for our resolution:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner liable to DBP as beneficiary in a group life insurance contract from a complaint filed by the widow of the decedent/mortgagor?

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that Dr. Leuterio concealed that he had hypertension, which would vitiate the insurance contract?

3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Grepalife liable in the amount of eighty six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos without proof of the actual outstanding mortgage payable by the mortgagor to DBP.

Petitioner alleges that the complaint was instituted by the widow of Dr. Leuterio, not the real party in interest, hence the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over the case. It argues that when the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment, Grepalife was held liable to pay the proceeds of insurance contract in favor of DBP, the indispensable party who was not joined in the suit.

To resolve the issue, we must consider the insurable interest in mortgaged properties and the parties to this type of contract. The rationale of a group insurance policy of mortgagors, otherwise known as the mortgage redemption insurance, is a device for the protection of both the mortgagee and the mortgagor. On the part of the mortgagee, it has to enter into such form of contract so that in the event of the unexpected demise of the mortgagor during the subsistence of the mortgage contract, the proceeds from such insurance will be applied to the payment of the mortgage debt, thereby relieving the heirs of the mortgagor from paying the obligation.[7] In a similar vein, ample protection is given to the mortgagor under such a concept so that in the event of death; the mortgage obligation will be extinguished by the application of the insurance proceeds to the mortgage indebtedness.[8] Consequently, where the mortgagor pays the insurance premium under the group insurance policy, making the loss payable to the mortgagee, the insurance is on the mortgagors interest, and the mortgagor continues to be a party to the contract. In this type of policy insurance, the mortgagee is simply an appointee of the insurance fund, such loss-payable clause does not make the mortgagee a party to the contract.[9]

Section 8 of the Insurance Code provides:

Unless the policy provides, where a mortgagor of property effects insurance in his own name providing that the loss shall be payable to the mortgagee, or assigns a policy of insurance to a mortgagee, the insurance is deemed to be upon the interest of the mortgagor, who does not cease to be a party to the original contract, and any act of his, prior to the loss, which would otherwise avoid the insurance, will have the same effect, although the property is in the hands of the mortgagee, but any act which, under the contract of insurance, is to be performed by the mortgagor, may be performed by the mortgagee therein named, with the same effect as if it had been performed by the mortgagor.

The insured private respondent did not cede to the mortgagee all his rights or interests in the insurance, the policy stating that: In the event of the debtors death before his indebtedness with the Creditor [DBP] shall have been fully paid, an amount to pay the outstanding indebtedness shall first be paid to the creditor and the balance of sum assured, if there is any, shall then be paid to the beneficiary/ies designated by the debtor.[10] When DBP submitted the insurance claim against petitioner, the latter denied payment thereof, interposing the defense of concealment committed by the insured. Thereafter, DBP collected the debt from the mortgagor and took the necessary action of foreclosure on the residential lot of private respondent.[11] In Gonzales La O vs. Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Ins. Co.[12] we held:

Insured, being the person with whom the contract was made, is primarily the proper person to bring suit thereon. * * * Subject to some exceptions, insured may thus sue, although the policy is taken wholly or in part for the benefit of another person named or unnamed, and although it is expressly made payable to another as his interest may appear or otherwise. * * * Although a policy issued to a mortgagor is taken out for the benefit of the mortgagee and is made payable to him, yet the mortgagor may sue thereon in his own name, especially where the mortgagees interest is less than the full amount recoverable under the policy, * * *.

And in volume 33, page 82, of the same work, we read the following:

Insured may be regarded as the real party in interest, although he has assigned the policy for the purpose of collection, or has assigned as collateral security any judgment he may obtain.[13]

And since a policy of insurance upon life or health may pass by transfer, will or succession to any person, whether he has an insurable interest or not, and such person may recover it whatever the insured might have recovered,[14] the widow of the decedent Dr. Leuterio may file the suit against the insurer, Grepalife.

The second assigned error refers to an alleged concealment that the petitioner interposed as its defense to annul the insurance contract. Petitioner contends that Dr. Leuterio failed to disclose that he had hypertension, which might have caused his death. Concealment exists where the assured had knowledge of a fact material to the risk, and honesty, good faith, and fair dealing requires that he should communicate it to the assured, but he designedly and intentionally withholds the same.[15]

Petitioner merely relied on the testimony of the attending physician, Dr. Hernando Mejia, as supported by the information given by the widow of the decedent. Grepalife asserts that Dr. Mejias technical diagnosis of the cause of death of Dr. Leuterio was a duly documented hospital record, and that the widows declaration that her husband had possible hypertension several years ago should not be considered as hearsay, but as part of res gestae.

On the contrary the medical findings were not conclusive because Dr. Mejia did not conduct an autopsy on the body of the decedent. As the attending physician, Dr. Mejia stated that he had no knowledge of Dr. Leuterios any previous hospital confinement.[16] Dr. Leuterios death certificate stated that hypertension was only the possible cause of death. The private respondents statement, as to the medical history of her husband, was due to her unreliable recollection of events. Hence, the statement of the physician was properly considered by the trial court as hearsay.

The question of whether there was concealment was aptly answered by the appellate court, thus:

The insured, Dr. Leuterio, had answered in his insurance application that he was in good health and that he had not consulted a doctor or any of the enumerated ailments, including hypertension; when he died the attending physician had certified in the death certificate that the former died of cerebral hemorrhage, probably secondary to hypertension. From this report, the appellant insurance company refused to pay the insurance claim. Appellant alleged that the insured had concealed the fact that he had hypertension.

Contrary to appellants allegations, there was no sufficient proof that the insured had suffered from hypertension. Aside from the statement of the insureds widow who was not even sure if the medicines taken by Dr. Leuterio were for hypertension, the appellant had not proven nor produced any witness who could attest to Dr. Leuterios medical history...

x x x

Appellant insurance company had failed to establish that there was concealment made by the insured, hence, it cannot refuse payment of the claim.[17]

The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to entitle the insurer to rescind the contract.[18] Misrepresentation as a defense of the insurer to avoid liability is an affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing evidence rests upon the insurer.[19] In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to clearly and satisfactorily establish its defense, and is therefore liable to pay the proceeds of the insurance.

And that brings us to the last point in the review of the case at bar. Petitioner claims that there was no evidence as to the amount of Dr. Leuterios outstanding indebtedness to DBP at the time of the mortgagors death. Hence, for private respondents failure to establish the same, the action for specific performance should be dismissed. Petitioners claim is without merit. A life insurance policy is a valued policy.[20] Unless the interest of a person insured is susceptible of exact pecuniary measurement, the measure of indemnity under a policy of insurance upon life or health is the sum fixed in the policy.[21] The mortgagor paid the premium according to the coverage of his insurance, which states that:

The policy states that upon receipt of due proof of the Debtors death during the terms of this insurance, a death benefit in the amount of P86,200.00 shall be paid.

In the event of the debtors death before his indebtedness with the creditor shall have been fully paid, an amount to pay the outstanding indebtedness shall first be paid to the Creditor and the balance of the Sum Assured, if there is any shall then be paid to the beneficiary/ies designated by the debtor.[22] (Emphasis omitted)

However, we noted that the Court of Appeals decision was promulgated on May 17, 1993. In private respondents memorandum, she states that DBP foreclosed in 1995 their residential lot, in satisfaction of mortgagors outstanding loan. Considering this supervening event, the insurance proceeds shall inure to the benefit of the heirs of the deceased person or his beneficiaries. Equity dictates that DBP should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another (Nemo cum alterius detrimenio protest). Hence, it cannot collect the insurance proceeds, after it already foreclosed on the mortgage. The proceeds now rightly belong to Dr. Leuterios heirs represented by his widow, herein private respondent Medarda Leuterio.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 18341 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the petitioner is ORDERED to pay the insurance proceeds amounting to Eighty-six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos to the heirs of the insured, Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio (deceased), upon presentation of proof of prior settlement of mortgagors indebtedness to Development Bank of the Philippines. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Harvardian Colleges v. Country Bankers Insurance Corp. CA1 CARA 2

Facts:> Harvardian is a family corporation, the stockholders of which are Ildefonso Yap, Virginia King Yap and their children.

> Prior to Aug. 9, 1979, an agent of Country Bankers proposed to Harvardian to insure its school building. Although at first reluctant, Harvardian agreed.

> Country Banks sent an inspector to inspect the school building and agreed to insure the same for P500,000 for which Harvardian paid an annual premium of P2,500.

> On Aug. 9, 1979, Country Bankers issued to Harvardian a fire insurance policy. On March 12, 1980, (39 days before I was born hehehehe )during the effectivity of said insurance policy, the insured property was totally burned rendering it a total loss.

> A claim was made by plaintiff upon defendant but defendant denied it contending that plaintiff had no insurable interest over the building constructed on the piece of land in the name of the late Ildefonso Yap as owner.

> It was contended that both the lot and the building were owned by Ildefonso Yap and NOT by the Harvardian Colleges.

Issue:Whether or not Harvardian colleges has a right to the proceeds.

Held:Harvardian has a right to the proceeds.

Regardless of the nature of the title of the insured or even if he did not have title to the property insured, the contract of fire insurance should still be upheld if his interest in or his relation to the property is such that he will be benefited in its continued existence or suffer a direct pecuniary loss from its destruction or injury. The test in determining insurable interest in property is whether one will derive pecuniary benefit or advantage from its preservation, or will suffer pecuniary loss or damage from its destruction, termination or injury by the happening of the event insured against.

Here Harvardian was not only in possession of the building but was in fact using the same for several years with the knowledge and consent of Ildefonso Yap. It is reasonably fair to assume that had the building not been burned, Harvardian would have been allowed the continued use of the same as the site of its operation as an educational institution. Harvardian therefore would have been directly benefited by the preservation of the property, and certainly suffered a pecuniary loss by its being burned.

Ang Ka Yu v. Phoenix Assurance - Insurable Interest1 CARA 704

Facts:> Ang Ka Yu had a piece of property in his possession. He insured it with Phoenix.

> The property was lost, so Ang Ka Yu sought to claim the proceeds.

> Phoenix denied liability on the ground that Ang was not the owner but a mere possessor and as such, had no insurable interest over the property.

Issue:Whether or not a mere possessor has insurable interest over the property.

Held:Yes.

A person having a mere right or possession of property may insure it to its full value and in his own name, even when he is not responsible for its safekeeping. The reason is that even if a person is NOT interested in the safety and preservation of material in his possession because they belong to 3rd parties, said person still has insurable interest, because he stands either to benefit from their continued existence or to be prejudiced by their destruction.

G.R. No. 147839 June 8, 2006

GAISANO CAGAYAN, INC. Petitioner, vs.INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 dated October 11, 2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 61848 which set aside the Decision dated August 31, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 138, Makati (RTC) in Civil Case No. 92-322 and upheld the causes of action for damages of Insurance Company of North America (respondent) against Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. (petitioner); and the CA Resolution dated April 11, 2001 which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The factual background of the case is as follows:

Intercapitol Marketing Corporation (IMC) is the maker of Wrangler Blue Jeans. Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. (LSPI) is the local distributor of products bearing trademarks owned by Levi Strauss & Co.. IMC and LSPI separately obtained from respondent fire insurance policies with book debt endorsements. The insurance policies provide for coverage on "book debts in connection with ready-made clothing materials which have been sold or delivered to various customers and dealers of the Insured anywhere in the Philippines."2 The policies defined book debts as the "unpaid account still appearing in the Book of Account of the Insured 45 days after the time of the loss covered under this Policy."3 The policies also provide for the following conditions:

1. Warranted that the Company shall not be liable for any unpaid account in respect of the merchandise sold and delivered by the Insured which are outstanding at the date of loss for a period in excess of six (6) months from the date of the covering invoice or actual delivery of the merchandise whichever shall first occur.

2. Warranted that the Insured shall submit to the Company within twelve (12) days after the close of every calendar month all amount shown in their books of accounts as unpaid and thus become receivable item from their customers and dealers. x x x4

x x x x

Petitioner is a customer and dealer of the products of IMC and LSPI. On February 25, 1991, the Gaisano Superstore Complex in Cagayan de Oro City, owned by petitioner, was consumed by fire. Included in the items lost or destroyed in the fire were stocks of ready-made clothing materials sold and delivered by IMC and LSPI.

On February 4, 1992, respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner. It alleges that IMC and LSPI filed with respondent their claims under their respective fire insurance policies with book debt endorsements; that as of February 25, 1991, the unpaid accounts of petitioner on the sale and delivery of ready-made clothing materials with IMC was P2,119,205.00 while with LSPI it was P535,613.00; that respondent paid the claims of IMC and LSPI and, by virtue thereof, respondent was subrogated to their rights against petitioner; that respondent made several demands for payment upon petitioner but these went unheeded.5

In its Answer with Counter Claim dated July 4, 1995, petitioner contends that it could not be held liable because the property covered by the insurance policies were destroyed due to fortuities event or force majeure; that respondent's right of subrogation has no basis inasmuch as there was no breach of contract committed by it since the loss was due to fire which it could not prevent or foresee; that IMC and LSPI never communicated to it that they insured their properties; that it never consented to paying the claim of the insured.6

At the pre-trial conference the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.7 Thus, trial on the merits ensued.

On August 31, 1998, the RTC rendered its decision dismissing respondent's complaint.8 It held that the fire was purely accidental; that the cause of the fire was not attributable to the negligence of the petitioner; that it has not been established that petitioner is the debtor of IMC and LSPI; that since the sales invoices state that "it is further agreed that merely for purpose of securing the payment of purchase price, the above-described merchandise remains the property of the vendor until the purchase price is fully paid", IMC and LSPI retained ownership of the delivered goods and must bear the loss.

Dissatisfied, petitioner appealed to the CA.9 On October 11, 2000, the CA rendered its decision setting aside the decision of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered ordering defendant-appellee Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. to pay:

1. the amount of P2,119,205.60 representing the amount paid by the plaintiff-appellant to the insured Inter Capitol Marketing Corporation, plus legal interest from the time of demand until fully paid;

2. the amount of P535,613.00 representing the amount paid by the plaintiff-appellant to the insured Levi Strauss Phil., Inc., plus legal interest from the time of demand until fully paid.

With costs against the defendant-appellee.

SO ORDERED.10

The CA held that the sales invoices are proofs of sale, being detailed statements of the nature, quantity and cost of the thing sold; that loss of the goods in the fire must be borne by petitioner since the proviso contained in the sales invoices is an exception under Article 1504 (1) of the Civil Code, to the general rule that if the thing is lost by a fortuitous event, the risk is borne by the owner of the thing at the time the loss under the principle of res perit domino; that petitioner's obligation to IMC and LSPI is not the delivery of the lost goods but the payment of its unpaid account and as such the obligation to pay is not extinguished, even if the fire is considered a fortuitous event; that by subrogation, the insurer has the right to go against petitioner; that, being a fire insurance with book debt endorsements, what was insured was the vendor's interest as a creditor.11

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration12 but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated April 11, 2001.13

Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari anchored on the following Assignment of Errors:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INSURANCE IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS ONE OVER CREDIT.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALL RISK OVER THE SUBJECT GOODS IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD TRANSFERRED TO PETITIONER UPON DELIVERY THEREOF.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS AUTOMATIC SUBROGATION UNDER ART. 2207 OF THE CIVIL CODE IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT.14

Anent the first error, petitioner contends that the insurance in the present case cannot be deemed to be over credit since an insurance "on credit" belies not only the nature of fire insurance but the express terms of the policies; that it was not credit that was insured since respondent paid on the occasion of the loss of the insured goods to fire and not because of the non-payment by petitioner of any obligation; that, even if the insurance is deemed as one over credit, there was no loss as the accounts were not yet due since no prior demands were made by IMC and LSPI against petitioner for payment of the debt and such demands came from respondent only after it had already paid IMC and LSPI under the fire insurance policies.15

As to the second error, petitioner avers that despite delivery of the goods, petitioner-buyer IMC and LSPI assumed the risk of loss when they secured fire insurance policies over the goods.

Concerning the third ground, petitioner submits that there is no subrogation in favor of respondent as no valid insurance could be maintained thereon by IMC and LSPI since all risk had transferred to petitioner upon delivery of the goods; that petitioner was not privy to the insurance contract or the payment between respondent and its insured nor was its consent or approval ever secured; that this lack of privity forecloses any real interest on the part of respondent in the obligation to pay, limiting its interest to keeping the insured goods safe from fire.

For its part, respondent counters that while ownership over the ready- made clothing materials was transferred upon delivery to petitioner, IMC and LSPI have insurable interest over said goods as creditors who stand to suffer direct pecuniary loss from its destruction by fire; that petitioner is liable for loss of the ready-made clothing materials since it failed to overcome the presumption of liability under Article 126516 of the Civil Code; that the fire was caused through petitioner's negligence in failing to provide stringent measures of caution, care and maintenance on its property because electric wires do not usually short circuit unless there are defects in their installation or when there is lack of proper maintenance and supervision of the property; that petitioner is guilty of gross and evident bad faith in refusing to pay respondent's valid claim and should be liable to respondent for contracted lawyer's fees, litigation expenses and cost of suit.17

As a general rule, in petitions for review, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CA is limited to reviewing questions of law which involves no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.18 The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.19 Accordingly, findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on the Supreme Court.20

Nevertheless, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court, such as: (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 appellee; (7) when the findings 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 CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.21 Exceptions (4), (5), (7), and (11) apply to the present petition.

At issue is the proper interpretation of the questioned insurance policy. Petitioner claims that the CA erred in construing a fire insurance policy on book debts as one covering the unpaid accounts of IMC and LSPI since such insurance applies to loss of the ready-made clothing materials sold and delivered to petitioner.

The Court disagrees with petitioner's stand.

It is well-settled that when the words of a contract are plain and readily understood, there is no room for construction.22 In this case, the questioned insurance policies provide coverage for "book debts in connection with ready-made clothing materials which have been sold or delivered to various customers and dealers of the Insured anywhere in the Philippines."23 ; and defined book debts as the "unpaid account still appearing in the Book of Account of the Insured 45 days after the time of the loss covered under this Policy."24 Nowhere is it provided in the questioned insurance policies that the subject of the insurance is the goods sold and delivered to the customers and dealers of the insured.

Indeed, when the terms of the agreement are clear and explicit that they do not justify an attempt to read into it any alleged intention of the parties, the terms are to be understood literally just as they appear on the face of the contract.25 Thus, what were insured against were the accounts of IMC and LSPI with petitioner which remained unpaid 45 days after the loss through fire, and not the loss or destruction of the goods delivered.

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)

x x x x

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.30 Indeed, 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.

The next question is: Is petitioner liable for the unpaid accounts?

Petitioner's argument that it is not liable because the fire is a fortuitous event under Article 117432 of the Civil Code is misplaced. As held earlier, petitioner bears the loss under Article 1504 (1) of the Civil Code.

Moreover, it must be stressed that the insurance in this case is not for loss of goods by fire but for petitioner's accounts with IMC and LSPI that remained unpaid 45 days after the fire. Accordingly, petitioner's obligation is for the payment of money. As correctly stated by the CA, where the obligation consists in the payment of money, the failure of the debtor to make the payment even by reason of a fortuitous event shall not relieve him of his liability.33 The rationale for this is that the rule that an obligor should be held exempt from liability when the loss occurs thru a fortuitous event only holds true when the obligation consists in the delivery of a determinate thing and there is no stipulation holding him liable even in case of fortuitous event. It does not apply when the obligation is pecuniary in nature.34

Under Article 1263 of the Civil Code, "[i]n an obligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the obligation." If the obligation is generic in the sense that the object thereof is designated merely by its class or genus without any particular designation or physical segregation from all others of the same class, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind even without the debtor's fault and before he has incurred in delay will not have the effect of extinguishing the obligation.35 This rule is based on the principle that the genus of a thing can never perish. Genus nunquan perit.36 An obligation to pay money is generic; therefore, it is not excused by fortuitous loss of any specific property of the debtor.37

Thus, whether fire is a fortuitous event or petitioner was negligent are matters immaterial to this case. What is relevant here is whether it has been established that petitioner has outstanding accounts with IMC and LSPI.

With respect to IMC, the respondent has adequately established its claim. Exhibits "C" to "C-22"38 show that petitioner has an outstanding account with IMC in the amount of P2,119,205.00. Exhibit "E"39 is the check voucher evidencing payment to IMC. Exhibit "F"40 is the subrogation receipt executed by IMC in favor of respondent upon receipt of the insurance proceeds. All these documents have been properly identified, presented and marked as exhibits in court. The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not only the relationship of respondent as insurer and IMC as the insured, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance claim. The right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.41 Respondent's action against petitioner is squarely sanctioned by Article 2207 of the Civil Code which provides:

Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. x x x

Petitioner failed to refute respondent's evidence.

As to LSPI, respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to prove its cause of action. No evidentiary weight can be given to Exhibit "F Levi Strauss",42 a letter dated April 23, 1991 from petitioner's General Manager, Stephen S. Gaisano, Jr., since it is not an admission of petitioner's unpaid account with LSPI. It only confirms the loss of Levi's products in the amount of P535,613.00 in the fire that razed petitioner's building on February 25, 1991.

Moreover, there is no proof of full settlement of the insurance claim of LSPI; no subrogation receipt was offered in evidence. Thus, there is no evidence that respondent has been subrogated to any right which LSPI may have against petitioner. Failure to substantiate the claim of subrogation is fatal to petitioner's case for recovery of the amount of P535,613.00.

WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated October 11, 2000 and Resolution dated April 11, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61848 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the order to pay the amount of P535,613.00 to respondent is DELETED for lack of factual basis.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-67835October 12, 1987

MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. (MICO), petitioner, vs.GREGORIA CRUZ ARNALDO, in her capacity as the INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, and CORONACION PINCA, respondents.

CRUZ, J.:

When a person's house is razed, the fire usually burns down the efforts of a lifetime and forecloses hope for the suddenly somber future. The vanished abode becomes a charred and painful memory. Where once stood a home, there is now, in the sighing wisps of smoke, only a gray desolation. The dying embers leave ashes in the heart.

For peace of mind and as a hedge against possible loss, many people now secure fire insurance. This is an aleatory contract. By such insurance, the insured in effect wagers that his house will be burned, with the insurer assuring him against the loss, for a fee. If the house does burn, the insured, while losing his house, wins the wagers. The prize is the recompense to be given by the insurer to make good the loss the insured has sustained.

It would be a pity then if, having lost his house, the insured were also to lose the payment he expects to recover for such loss. Sometimes it is his fault that he cannot collect, as where there is a defect imputable to him in the insurance contract. Conversely, the reason may be an unjust refusal of the insurer to acknowledge a just obligation, as has happened many times.

In the instant case the private respondent has been sustained by the Insurance Commission in her claim for compensation for her burned property. The petitioner is now before us to dispute the decision, 1 on the ground that there was no valid insurance contract at the time of the loss.

The chronology of the relevant antecedent facts is as follows:

On June 7, 1981, the petitioner (hereinafter called (MICO) issued to the private respondent, Coronacion Pinca, Fire Insurance Policy No. F-001-17212 on her property for the amount of P14,000.00 effective July 22, 1981, until July 22, 1982. 2

On October 15,1981, MICO allegedly cancelled the policy for non-payment, of the premium and sent the corresponding notice to Pinca. 3

On December 24, 1981, payment of the premium for Pinca was received by DomingoAdora, agent of MICO. 4

On January 15, 1982, Adora remitted this payment to MICO,together with other payments. 5

On January 18, 1982, Pinca's property was completely burned. 6

On February 5, 1982, Pinca's payment was returned by MICO to Adora on the ground that her policy had been cancelled earlier. But Adora refused to accept it. 7

In due time, Pinca made the requisite demands for payment, which MICO rejected. She then went to the Insurance Commission. It is because she was ultimately sustained by the public respondent that the petitioner has come to us for relief.

From the procedural viewpoint alone, the petition must be rejected. It is stillborn.

The records show that notice of the decision of the public respondent dated April 5, 1982, was received by MICO on April 10, 1982. 8 On April 25, 1982, it filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on June 4, 1982. 9 Notice of this denial was received by MICO on June 13, 1982, as evidenced by Annex "1" duly authenticated by the Insurance Commission. 10 The instant petition was filed with this Court on July 2, 1982. 11

The position of the petition is that the petition is governed by Section 416 0f the Insurance Code giving it thirty days wthin which to appeal by certiorari to this Court. Alternatively, it also invokes Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. For their part, the public and private respondents insist that the applicable law is B.P. 129, which they say governs not only courts of justice but also quasi-judicial bodies like the Insurance Commission. The period for appeal under this law is also fifteen days, as under Rule 45.

The pivotal date is the date the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration was received by MICO.

MICO avers this was June 18, 1982, and offers in evidence its Annex "B," 12 which is a copy of the Order of June 14, 1982, with a signed rubber-stamped notation on the upper left-hand corner that it was received on June 18, 1982, by its legal department. It does not indicate from whom. At the bottom, significantly, there is another signature under which are the ciphers "6-13-82," for which no explanation has been given.

Against this document, the private respodent points in her Annex "1," 13 the authenticated copy of the same Order with a rubber-stamped notation at the bottom thereof indicating that it was received for the Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. by J. Gotladera on "6-13-82." The signature may or may not habe been written by the same person who signed at the bottom of the petitioner's Annex "B."

Between the two dates, the court chooses to believe June 13, 1982, not only because the numbers "6-13-82" appear on both annexes but also because it is the date authenticated by the administrative division of the Insurance Commission. Annex "B" is at worst self-serving; at best, it might only indicate that it was received on June 18, 1982, by the legal department of MICO, after it had been received earlier by some other of its personnel on June 13, 1982. Whatever the reason for the delay in transmitting it to the legal department need not detain us here.

Under Section 416 of the Insurance Code, the period for appeal is thirty days from notice of the decision of the Insurance Commission. The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on April 25, 1981, or fifteen days such notice, and the reglementary period began to run again after June 13, 1981, date of its receipt of notice of the denial of the said motion for reconsideration. As the herein petition was filed on July 2, 1981, or nineteen days later, there is no question that it is tardy by four days.

Counted from June 13, the fifteen-day period prescribed under Rule 45, assuming it is applicable, would end on June 28, 1982, or also four days from July 2, when the petition was filed.

If it was filed under B.P. 129, then, considering that the motion for reconsideration was filed on the fifteenth day after MICO received notice of the decision, only one more day would have remained for it to appeal, to wit, June 14, 1982. That would make the petition eighteen days late by July 2.

Indeed, even if the applicable law were still R.A. 5434, governing appeals from administrative bodies, the petition would still be tardy. The law provides for a fixed period of ten days from notice of the denial of a seasonable motion for reconsideration within which to appeal from the decision. Accordingly, that ten-day period, counted from June 13, 1982, would have ended on June 23, 1982, making the petition filed on July 2, 1982, nine days late.

Whichever law is applicable, therefore, the petition can and should be dismissed for late filing.

On the merits, it must also fail. MICO's arguments that there was no payment of premium and that the policy had been cancelled before the occurence of the loss are not acceptable. Its contention that the claim was allowed without proof of loss is also untenable.

The petitioner relies heavily on Section 77 of the Insurance Code providing that:

SEC. 77.An insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing is exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies.

The above provision is not applicable because payment of the premium was in fact eventually made in this case. Notably, the premium invoice issued to Pinca at the time of the delivery of the policy on June 7, 1981 was stamped "Payment Received" of the amoung of P930.60 on "12-24-81" by Domingo Adora. 14 This is important because it suggests an understanding between MICO and the insured that such payment could be made later, as agent Adora had assured Pinca. In any event, it is not denied that this payment was actually made by Pinca to Adora, who remitted the same to MICO.

The payment was made on December 24, 1981, and the fire occured on January 18, 1982. One wonders: suppose the payment had been made and accepted in, say, August 1981, would the commencement date of the policy have been changed to the date of the payment, or would the payment have retroacted to July 22, 1981? If MICO accepted the payment in December 1981 and the insured property had not been burned, would that policy not have expired just the same on July 22, 1982, pursuant to its original terms, and not on December 24, 1982?

It would seem from MICO's own theory, that the policy would have become effective only upon payment, if accepted and so would have been valid only from December 24, 1981m but only up to July 22, 1981, according to the original terms. In others words, the policy would have run for only eight months although the premium paid was for one whole year.

It is not disputed that the preium was actually paid by Pinca to Adora on December 24, 1981, who received it on behalf of MICO, to which it was remitted on January 15, 1982. What is questioned is the validity of Pinca's payment and of Adora's authority to receive it.

MICO's acknowledgment of Adora as its agent defeats its contention that he was not authorized to receive the premium payment on its behalf. It is clearly provided in Section 306 of the Insurance Code that:

SEC. 306.xxxxxxxxx

Any insurance company which delivers to an insurance agant or insurance broker a policy or contract of insurance shall be demmed to have authorized such agent or broker to receive on its behalf payment of any premium which is due on such policy or contract of insurance at the time of its issuance or delivery or which becomes due thereon.

And it is a well-known principle under the law of agency that:

Payment to an agent having authority to receive or collect payment is equivalent to payment to the principal himself; such payment is complete when the money delivered is into the agent's hands and is a discharge of the indebtedness owing to the principal. 15

There is the petitioner's argument, however, that Adora was not authorized to accept the premium payment because six months had elapsed since the issuance by the policy itself. It is argued that this prohibition was binding upon Pinca, who made the payment to Adora at her own riskl as she was bound to first check his authority to receive it. 16

MICO is taking an inconsistent stand. While contending that acceptance of the premium payment was prohibited by the policy, it at the same time insists that the policy never came into force because the premium had not been paid. One surely, cannot have his cake and eat it too.

We do not share MICO's view that there was no existing insurance at the time of the loss sustained by Pinca because her policy never became effective for non-payment of premium. Payment was in fact made, rendering the policy operative as of June 22, 1981, and removing it from the provisions of Article 77, Thereafter, the policy could be cancelled on any of the supervening grounds enumerated in Article 64 (except "nonpayment of premium") provided the cancellation was made in accordance therewith and with Article 65.

Section 64 reads as follows:

SEC. 64.No policy of insurance other than life shall be cancelled by the insurer except upon prior notice thereof to the insured, and no notice of cancellation shall be effective unless it is based on the occurrence, after the effective date of the policy, of one or more of the following:

(a)non-payment of premium;

(b)conviction of a crime arising out of acts increasing the hazard insured against;

(c)discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation;

(d)discovery of willful, or reckless acts or commissions increasing the hazard insured against;

(e)physical changes in the property insured which result in the property becoming uninsurable;or

(f)a determination by the Commissioner that the continuation of the policy would violate or would place the insurer in violation of this Code.

As for the method of cancellation, Section 65 provides as follows:

SEC. 65.All notices of cancellation mentioned in the preceding section shall be in writing, mailed or delivered to the named insured at the address shown in the policy, and shall state (a) which of the grounds set forth in section sixty-four is relied upon and (b) that, upon written request of the named insured, the insurer will furnish the facts on which the cancellation is based.

A valid cancellation must, therefore, require concurrence of the following conditions:

(1)There must be prior notice of cancellation to the insured; 17

(2)The notice must be based on the occurrence, after the effective date of the policy, of one or more of the grounds mentioned;18

(3)The notice must be (a) in writing, (b) mailed, or delivered to the named insured, (c) at the address shown in the policy; 19

(4)It must state (a) which of the grounds mentioned in Section 64 is relied upon and (b) that upon written request of the insured, the insurer will furnish the facts on which the cancellation is based. 20

MICO's claims it cancelled the policy in question on October 15, 1981, for non-payment of premium. To support this assertion, it presented one of its employees, who testified that "the original of the endorsement and credit memo" presumably meaning the alleged cancellation "were sent the assured by mail through our mailing section" 21 However, there is no proof that the notice, assuming it complied with the other requisites mentioned above, was actually mailed to and received by Pinca. All MICO's offers to show that the cancellation was communicated to the insured is its employee's testimony that the said cancellation was sent "by mail through our mailing section." without more. The petitioner then says that its "stand is enervated (sic) by the legal presumption of regularity and due performance of duty." 22 (not realizing perhaps that "enervated" means "debilitated" not "strengthened").

On the other hand, there is the flat denial of Pinca, who says she never received the claimed cancellation and who, of course, did not have to prove such denial Considering the strict language of Section 64 that no insurance policy shall be cancelled except upon prior notice, it behooved MICO's to make sure that the cancellation was actually sent to and received by the insured. The presumption cited is unavailing against the positive duty enjoined by Section 64 upon MICO and the flat denial made by the private respondent that she had received notice of the claimed cancellation.

It stands to reason that if Pinca had really received the said notice, she would not have made payment on the original policy on December 24, 1981. Instead, she would have asked for a new insurance, effective on that date and until one year later, and so taken advantage of the extended period. The Court finds that if she did pay on that date, it was because she honestly believed that the policy issued on June 7, 1981, was still in effect and she was willing to make her payment retroact to July 22, 1981, its stipulated commencement date. After all, agent Adora was very accomodating and had earlier told her "to call him up any time" she was ready with her payment on the policy earlier issued. She was obviously only reciprocating in kind when she paid her premium for the period beginning July 22, 1981, and not December 24, 1981.

MICO's suggests that Pinca knew the policy had already been cancelled and that when she paid the premium on December 24, 1981, her purpose was "to renew it." As this could not be done by the agent alone under the terms of the original policy, the renewal thereof did not legally bind MICO. which had not ratified it. To support this argument, MICO's cites the following exchange:

Q:Now, Madam Witness, on December 25th you made the alleged payment. Now, my question is that, did it not come to your mind that after the lapse of six (6) months, your policy was cancelled?

A:I have thought of that but the agent told me to call him up at anytime.

Q:So if you thought that your policy was already intended to revive cancelled policy?

A:Misleading, Your Honor.

Hearing Officer: The testimony of witness is that, she thought of that.

Q:I will revise the question. Now, Mrs. Witness, you stated that you thought the policy was cancelled. Now, when you made the payment of December 24, 1981, your intention was to revive the policy if it was already cancelled?

A:Yes, to renew it. 23

A close study of the above transcript will show that Pinca meant to renew the policy if it had really been already cancelled but not if it was stffl effective. It was all conditional. As it has not been shown that there was a valid cancellation of the policy, there was consequently no need to renew it but to pay the premium thereon. Payment was thus legally made on the original transaction and it could be, and was, validly received on behalf of the insurer by its agent Adora. Adora. incidentally, had not been informed of the cancellation either and saw no reason not to accept the said payment.

The last point raised by the petitioner should not pose much difficulty. The valuation fixed in fire insurance policy is conclusive in case of total loss in the absence of fraud, 24 which is not shown here. Loss and its amount may be determined on the basis of such proof as may be offered by the insured, which need not be of such persuasiveness as is required in judicial proceedings. 25 If, as in this case, the insured files notice and preliminary proof of loss and the insurer fails to specify to the former all the defects thereof and without unnecessary delay, all objections to notice and proof of loss are deemed waived under Section 90 of the Insurance Code.

The certification 26 issued by the Integrated National Police, Lao-ang, Samar, as to the extent of Pinca's loss should be considered sufficient. Notably,MICO submitted no evidence to the contrary nor did it even question the extent of the loss in its answer before the Insurance Commission. It is also worth observing that Pinca's property was not the only building bumed in the fire that razed the commercial district of Lao-ang, Samar, on January 18, 1982. 27

There is nothing in the Insurance Code that makes the participation of an adjuster in the assessment of the loss imperative or indespensable, as MICO suggests. Section 325, which it cites, simply speaks of the licensing and duties of adjusters.

We see in this cases an obvious design to evade or at least delay the discharge of a just obligation through efforts bordering on bad faith if not plain duplicity, We note that the motion for reconsideration was filed on the fifteenth day from notice of the decision of the Insurance Commission and that there was a feeble attempt to show that the notice of denial of the said motion was not received on June 13, 1982, to further hinder the proceedings and justify the filing of the petition with this Court fourteen days after June 18, 1982. We also look askance at the alleged cancellation, of which the insured and MICO's agent himself had no knowledge, and the curious fact that although Pinca's payment was remitted to MICO's by its agent on January 15, 1982, MICO sought to return it to Adora only on February 5, 1982, after it presumably had learned of the occurrence of the loss insured against on January 18, 1982. These circumstances make the motives of the petitioner highly suspect, to say the least, and cast serious doubts upon its candor and bona fides.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Insurance Commission dated April 10, 1981, and its Order of June 4, 1981, are AFFIRMED in full, with costs against the petitioner. This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 95546November 6, 1992

MAKATI TUSCANY CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., represented by American International Underwriters (Phils.), Inc., respondent.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This case involves a purely legal question: whether payment by installment of the premiums due on an insurance policy invalidates the contract of insurance, in view of Sec. 77 of P.D. 612, otherwise known as the Insurance Code, as amended, which provides:

Sec. 77.An insurer is entitled to the payment of the premium as soon as the thing is exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies.

Sometime in early 1982, private respondent American Home Assurance Co. (AHAC), represented by American International Underwriters (Phils.), Inc., issued in favor of petitioner Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation (TUSCANY) Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210452 on the latter's building and premises, for a period beginning 1 March 1982 and ending 1 March 1983, with a total premium of P466,103.05. The premium was paid on installments on 12 March 1982, 20 May 1982, 21 June 1982 and 16 November 1982, all of which were accepted by private respondent.

On 10 February 1983, private respondent issued to petitioner Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210596, which replaced and renewed the previous policy, for a term covering 1 March 1983 to 1 March 1984. The premium in the amount of P466,103.05 was again paid on installments on 13 April 1983, 13 July 1983, 3 August 1983, 9 September 1983, and 21 November 1983. All payments were likewise accepted by private respondent.

On 20 January 1984, the policy was again renewed and private respondent issued to petitioner Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210651 for the period 1 March 1984 to 1 March 1985. On this renewed policy, petitioner made two installment payments, both accepted by private respondent, the first on 6 February 1984 for P52,000.00 and the second, on 6 June 1984 for P100,000.00. Thereafter, petitioner refused to pay the balance of the premium.

Consequently, private respondent filed an action to recover the unpaid balance of P314,103.05 for Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210651.

In its answer with counterclaim, petitioner admitted the issuance of Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210651. It explained that it discontinued the payment of premiums because the policy did not contain a credit clause in its favor and the receipts for the installment payments covering the policy for 1984-85, as well as the two (2) previous policies, stated the following reservations:

2.Acceptance of this payment shall not waive any of the company rights to deny liability on any claim under the policy arising before such payments or after the expiration of the credit clause of the policy; and

3.Subject to no loss prior to premium payment. If there be any loss such is not covered.

Petitioner further claimed that the policy was never binding and valid, and no risk attached to the policy. It then pleaded a counterclaim for P152,000.00 for the premiums already paid for 1984-85, and in its answer with amended counterclaim, sought the refund of P924,206.10 representing the premium payments for 1982-85.

After some incidents, petitioner and private respondent moved for summary judgment.

On 8 October 1987, the trial court dismissed the complaint and the counterclaim upon the following findings:

While it is true that the receipts issued to the defendant contained the aforementioned reservations, it is equally true that payment of the premiums of the three aforementioned policies (being sought to be refunded) were made during the lifetime or term of said policies, hence, it could not be said, inspite of the reservations, that no risk attached under the policies. Consequently, defendant's counterclaim for refund is not justified.

As regards the unpaid premiums on Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210651, in view of the reservation in the receipts ordinarily issued by the plaintiff on premium payments the only plausible conclusion is that plaintiff has no right to demand their payment after the lapse of the term of said policy on March 1, 1985. Therefore, the defendant was justified in refusing to pay the same. 1

Both parties appealed from the judgment of the trial court. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision 2 modifying that of the trial court by ordering herein petitioner to pay the balance of the premiums due on Policy No. AH-CPP-921-651, or P314,103.05 plus legal interest until fully paid, and affirming the denial of the counterclaim. The appellate court thus explained

The obligation to pay premiums when due is ordinarily as indivisible obligation to pay the entire premium. Here, the parties herein agreed to make the premiums payable in installments, and there is no pretense that the parties never envisioned to make the insurance contract binding between them. It was renewed for two succeeding years, the second and third policies being a renewal/replacement for the previous one. And the insured never informed the insurer that it was terminating the policy because the terms were unacceptable.

While it may be true that under Section 77 of the Insurance Code, the parties may not agree to make the insurance contract valid and binding without payment of premiums, there is nothing in said section which suggests that the parties may not agree to allow payment of the premiums in installment, or to consider the contract as valid and binding upon payment of the first premium. Otherwise, we would allow the insurer to renege on its liability under the contract, had a loss incurred (sic) before completion of payment of the entire premium, despite its voluntary acceptance of partial payments, a result eschewed by a basic considerations of fairness and equity.

To our mind, the insurance contract became valid and binding upon payment of the first premium, and the plaintiff could not have denied liability on the ground that payment was not made in full, for the reason that it agreed to accept installment payment. . . . 3

Petitioner now asserts that its payment by installment of the premiums for the insurance policies for 1982, 1983 and 1984 invalidated said policies because of the provisions of Sec. 77 of the Insurance Code, as amended, and by the conditions stipulated by the insurer in its receipts, disclaiming liability for loss for occurring before payment of premiums.

It argues that where the premiums is not actually paid in full, the policy would only be effective if there is an acknowledgment in the policy of the receipt of premium pursuant to Sec. 78 of the Insurance Code. The absence of an express acknowledgment in the policies of such receipt of the corresponding premium payments, and petitioner's failure to pay said premiums on or before the effective dates of said policies rendered them invalid. Petitioner thus concludes that there cannot be a perfected contract of insurance upon mere partial payment of the premiums because under Sec. 77 of the Insurance Code, no contract of insurance is valid and binding unless the premium thereof has been paid, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. As a consequence, petitioner seeks a refund of all premium payments made on the alleged invalid insurance policies.

We hold that the subject policies are valid even if the premiums were paid on installments. The records clearly show that petitioner and private respondent intended subject insurance policies to be binding and effective notwithstanding the staggered payment of the premiums. The initial insurance contract entered into in 1982 was renewed in 1983, then in 1984. In those three (3) years, the insurer accepted all the installment payments. Such acceptance of payments speaks loudly of the insurer's intention to honor the policies it issued to petitioner. Certainly, basic principles of equity and fairness would not allow the insurer to continue collecting and accepting the premiums, although paid on installments, and later deny liability on the lame excuse that the premiums were not prepared in full.

We therefore sustain the Court of Appeals. We quote with approval the well-reasoned findings and conclusion of the appellate court contained in its Resolution denying the motion to reconsider its Decision

While the import of Section 77 is that prepayment of premiums is strictly required as a condition to the validity of the contract, We are not prepared to rule that the request to make installment payments duly approved by the insurer, would prevent the entire contract of insurance from going into effect despite payment and acceptance of the initial premium or first installment. Section 78 of the Insurance Code in effect allows waiver by the insurer of the condition of prepayment by making an acknowledgment in the insurance policy of receipt of premium as conclusive evidence of payment so far as to make the policy binding despite the fact that premium is actually unpaid. Section 77 merely precludes the parties from stipulating that the policy is valid even if premiums are not paid, but does not expressly prohibit an agreement granting credit extension, and such an agreement is not contrary to morals, good customs, public order or public policy (De Leon, the Insurance Code, at p. 175). So is an understanding to allow insured to pay premiums in installments not so proscribed. At the very least, both parties should be deemed in estoppel to question the arrangement they have voluntarily accepted. 4

The reliance by petitioner on Arce vs. Capital Surety and InsuranceCo. 5 is unavailing because the facts therein are substantially different from those in the case at bar. In Arce, no payment was made by the insured at all despite the grace period given. In the case before Us, petitioner paid the initial installment and thereafter made staggered payments resulting in full payment of the 1982 and 1983 insurance policies. For the 1984 policy, petitioner paid two (2) installments although it refused to pay the balance.

It appearing from the peculiar circumstances that the parties actually intended to make three (3) insurance contracts valid, effective and binding, petitioner may not be allowed to renege on its obligation to pay the balance of the premium after the expiration of the whole term of the third policy (No. AH-CPP-9210651) in March 1985. Moreover, as correctly observed by the appellate court, where the risk is entire and the contract is indivisible, the insured is not entitled to a refund of the premiums paid if the insurer was exposed to the risk insured for any period, however brief or momentary.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, the same is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.G.R. No. 102253June 2, 1995

SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and VALENZUELA HARDWOOD AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC., respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

VITUG, J.:

Two issues on the subject of insurance are raised in this petition, that assails the decision, that assails the decision of the Court of Appeals. (in CA-G.R. NO. CV-20156), the first dealing on the requirement of premium payment and the second relating to the agency relationship of parties under that contract.

The court litigation started when Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. ("Hardwood"), filed with the Regional, Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region, Branch l71 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, a complaint for the recovery of the value of lost logs and freight charges from Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation or, to the extent of its alleged insurance cover, from South Sea Surety and insurance Company.

The factual backdrop is described briefly by the appellate court thusly:

It appears that on 16 January 1984, plaintiff [Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc.] entered into an agreement with the defendant Seven Brothers whereby the latter undertook to load on board its vessel M/V Seven Ambassador the former's lauan round logs numbering 940 at the port of Maconacon, Isabela for shipment to Manila.

On 20 January 1984, plaintiff insured the logs, against loss and/or, damage with defendant South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. for P2,000,000.00 end the latter issued its Marine Cargo Insurance Policy No. 84/24229 for P2,000,000.00 on said date.

On 24 January 1984, the plaintiff gave the check in payment of the premium on the insurance policy to Mr. Victorio Chua.

In the meantime, the said vessel M/V Seven Ambassador sank on 25 January 1984 resulting in the loss of the plaintiffs insured logs.

On 30 January 1984, a check for P5,625.00 (Exh. "E") to cover payment of the premium and documentary stamps due on the policy was tendered to the insurer but was not accepted. Instead, the South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. cancelled the insurance policy it issued as of the date of inception for non-payment of the premium due in accordance with Section 77 of the Insurance Code.

On 2 February 1984, plaintiff demanded from defendant South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. the payment of the proceeds of the policy but the latter denied liability under the policy. Plaintiff likewise filed a formal claim with defendant Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation for the value of the lost logs but the latter denied the claim. 1

In its decision, dated 11 May 1988, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff Hardwood.

On appeal perfected by both the shipping firm and the insurance company, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court a quo only against the insurance corporation; in absolving the shipping entity from liability, the appellate court ratiocinated:

The primary issue to be resolved before us is whether defendants shipping corporation and the surety company are liable to the plaintiff for the latter's lost logs.

It appears that there is a stipulation in the charter party that the ship owner would be exempted from liability in case of loss.

The court a quo erred in applying the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to establish the liability of the shipping corporation. The provisions on common carriers should not be applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier.

Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier.

As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability even for the negligence of its agent is valid (Home Insurance Company, Inc. vs. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., 23 SCRA 24).

The shipping corporation should not therefore be held liable for the loss of the logs. 2

In this petition for review on certiorari brought by South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., petitioner argues that it likewise should have been freed from any liability to Hardwood. It faults the appellate court (a) for having Supposedly disregarded Section 77 of the insurance Code and (b) for holding Victorio Chua to have been an authorized representative of the insurer.

Section 77 of the Insurance Code provides:

Sec. 77.An insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies.

Undoubtedly, the payment of the premium is a condition precedent to, and essential for, the efficaciousness of the contract. The only two statutorily provided exceptions are (a) in case the insurance coverage relates to life or industrial life (health) insurance when a grace period applies and (b) when the insurer makes a written acknowledgment of the receipt of premium, this acknowledgment being declared by law to be then conclusive evidence of the premium payment (Secs. 77-78, Insurance Code). The appellate court, contrary to what the petition suggests, did not make any pronouncement to the contrary. Indeed, it has said:

Concerning the issue as to whether there is a valid contract of insurance between plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellant South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., Section 77 of the Insurance Code explicitly provides that notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until premium thereof has been paid. It is therefore important to determine whether at the time of the loss, the premium was already paid. 3

No attempt becloud the issues can disguise the fact that the sole question raised in the instant petition is really evidentiary in nature, i.e., whether or not Victorio Chua, in receiving the check for the insurance premium prior to the occurrence of the risk insured against has so acted as an agent of petitioner. The appellate court, like the trial court, has found in the affirmative. Said the appellate court:

In the instant case, the Marine Cargo Insurance Policy No. 84/24229 was issued by defendant insurance company on 20 January 1984. At the time the vessel sank on 25 January 1984 resulting in the loss of the insured logs, the insured had already delivered to Victorio Chua the check in payment of premium. But, as Victorio Chua testified, it was only in the morning of 30 January 1984 or 5 days after the vessel sank when his messenger tendered the check to defendant South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. (TSN, pp. 3-27, 16-17, 22 October 1985).

The pivotal issue to be resolved to determine the liability, of the surety corporation is whether Mr. Chua acted as an agent of the surety company or of the insured when he received the check for insurance premiums.

Appellant surety company insists that Mr. Chua is an administrative assistant for the past ten years and an agent for less than ten years of the Columbia Insurance Brokers, Ltd. He is paid a salary as a administrative assistant and a commission as agent based on the premiums he turns over to the broker. Appellant therefore argues that Mr. Chua, having received the insurance premiums as an agent of the Columbia Insurance Broker, acted as an agent of the insured under Section 301 of the Insurance Code which provides as follows:

Sec. 301.Any person who for any compensation, commission or other thing of value, acts, or aids in soliciting, negotiating or procuring the making of any insurance contract or in placing risk or taking out insurance, on behalf of an insured other than himself, shall be an insurance broker within the intent of this Code, and shall thereby become liable to all the duties requirements, liabilities and penalties to which an insurance broker is subject.

The appellees, upon the other hand, claim that the second paragraph of Section 306 of the Insurance Code provide as follows:

Sec. 306.. . . Any insurance company which delivers to an insurance agent or insurance broker a policy or contract of insurance shall be deemed to have authorized such agent or broker to receive on its behalf payment of any premium which is due on such policy of contract of insurance at the time of its issuance or delivery or which becomes due thereon.

On cross-examination in behalf of South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. Mr. Chua testified that the marine cargo insurance policy for the plaintiff's logs was delivered to him on 21 January 1984 at his office to be delivered to the plaintiff.

When the appellant South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. delivered to Mr. Chua the marine cargo insurance policy for the plaintiffs logs, he is deemed to have been authorized by the South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. to receive the premium which is due on its behalf.

When therefore the insured logs were lost, the insured had already paid the premium to an agent of the South Sea Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., which is consequently liable to pay the insurance proceeds under the policy it issued to the insured. 4

We see no valid reason to discard the factual conclusions of the appellate court. Just as so correctly pointed out by private respondent, it is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties particularly where, such as here, the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court on the matter coincide.

WHEREFORE, the resolution, dated 01 February 1993, granting due course to the petition is RECALLED, and the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 119655. May 24, 1996]

SPS. ANTONIO A. TIBAY and VIOLETA R. TIBAY and OFELIA M. RORALDO, VICTORINA M. RORALDO, VIRGILIO M. RORALDO, MYRNA M. RORALDO and ROSABELLA M. RORALDO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FORTUNE LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., respondents.D E C I S I O N*BELLOSILLO, J.:

May a fire insurance policy be valid, binding and enforceable upon mere partial payment of premium?

On 22 January 1987 private respondent Fortune Life and General Insurance Co., Inc. (FORTUNE) issued Fire Insurance Policy No. 136171 in favor of Violeta R. Tibay and/or Nicolas Roraldo on their two-storey residential building located at 5855 Zobel Street, Makati City, together with all their personal effects therein. The insurance was for P600,000.00 covering the period from 23 January 1987 to 23 January 1988. On 23 January 1987, of the total premium of P2,983.50, petitioner Violeta Tibay only paid P600.00 thus leaving a considerable balance unpaid.

On 8 March 1987 the insured building was completely destroyed by fire. Two days later or on 10 March 1987 Violeta Tibay paid the balance of the premium. On the same day, she filed with FORTUNE a claim on the fire insurance policy. Her claim was accordingly referred to its adjuster, Goodwill Adjustment Services, Inc. (GASI), which immediately wrote Violeta requesting her to furnish it with the necessary documents for the investigation and processing of her claim. Petitioner forthwith complied. On 28 March 1987 she signed a non-waiver agreement with GASI to the effect that any action taken by the companies or their representatives in investigating the claim made by the claimant for his loss which occurred at 5855 Zobel Ro