Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CASE DIGESTS
Submitted to PROF. DAVID AQUINO
Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6
Tomas Lianco (Lianco) and the Archbishop of Manila entered into a contract of lease on a
parcel of land owned by Church. As lessee, Lianco erected a building on the leased portion of the
subject land. Thereafter, Lianco transferred ownership of this building to Kaw Eng Si, who later
transferred the same to Juan Golangco (Golangco). It bears stressing that these transfers were made
without the consent of the Archbishop of Manila.
As a consequence thereof, the Archbishop of Manila filed an ejectment case against Lianco,
who appears to occupy the building premises with others and pays rent to Golangco. Consequently,
the right of Golangco to receive rent on the building was judicially recognized in a case decided
between Lianco and others occupying the premises pursuant to a compromise agreement. The
Archbishop did not exercise his option to question Golangcos rights as lessee.
On 7 April 1949, Golangco applied for fire insurance with Traders Insurance and Surety
Co. (Traders) which provides "that all insurance covered under said policy, includes the 'rent or
other subject matter of insurance in respect of or in connection with any building or any property
contained in any building."
On 5 June 1949, the building premises was burned. Thereafter, Golangco claimed from
Traders the proceeds of the insurance policy. Traders insurance refused to pay the insurance for
the rent averring that Golangco has no insurable interest.
ISSUE: In view of the judgment in ejectment case, whether Golangco had insurable interest on
the subject property?
RULING: The ejectment case filed by the Archbishop against Lianco did not remove nor destroy
plaintiffs insurable interest: first, because plaintiff was not a party thereto and cannot be bound
thereby; xxx so that, as far as plaintiff Golangco was concerned, his right to the premises and to
the rentals thereon continued to exist on June 5, 1949 when the fire took place.
Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6
agreement. xxx The trial court did not find that such an agreement existed and we think [Lampano]
has failed to establish this verbal agreement.
If Barretto had an insurable interest in the house, he could insure this interest for his sole
protection. The policy was in the name of Barretto alone. It was, therefore, a personal contract
between him and the company and not a contract which ran with the property. According to this
personal contract the insurance policy was payable to the insured without regard to the nature and
extent of his interest in the property, provided that he had, as we have said, an insurable interest at
the time of the making of the contract, and also at the time of the fire. Where different persons
have different interests in the same property, the insurance taken by one in his own right and in his
own interest does not in any way insure to the benefit of another. This is the general rule prevailing
in the United States and we find nothing different in this jurisdiction. xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
In the case at bar Barretto assumed the responsibility for the insurance. The premiums, as
we have indicated, were paid by him without any agreement or right to recoup the amount paid
therefor should no loss result to the property. It would not, therefore, be in accordance with the
law and his contractual obligations to compel him to account for the insurance money, or any par
thereof, to the plaintiff, who assumed no risk whatever.
That Barretto had an insurable interest in the house, we think there can be no question. He
construed the building, furnishing all the materials and supplies, and insured it after it had been
completed xxx.
Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6
Spouses Nilo and Stella Cha, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.
G.R. No. 124520, 277 SCRA 690, 18 August 1997
Spouses Nilo Cha and Stella Uy-Cha (Spouses Cha), as lessees, entered into a lease
contract with private respondent CKS Development Corporation (CKS), as lessor, on 5 October
1988. The contract prohibits the lessees to 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. Further, the lease contract provided that 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.
Notwithstanding the above stipulation in the lease contract, Spouses Cha insured against
loss by fire the merchandise inside the leased premises with the United Insurance Co., Inc. (United)
without the written consent of private respondent CKS.
On the day that the lease contract was to expire, fire broke out inside the leased premises.
When CKS learned of the insurance earlier procured by the Spouses Cha, 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 the Spouses Cha.
United refused to pay CKS. Hence, the CKS filed a complaint against the Spouses Cha and
United.
ISSUE: Whether the provisions of the lease contract is valid and has binding effect on the insurer?
RULING: The contract is void. 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. xxx In such a case, the contract of insurance is a mere wager which is void under
Section 25 of the Insurance Code xxx
ISSUE: Whether the CKS should be granted the insurance proceeds?
RULING: No. xxx 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.