Enriquez v.

SunLife- Insurance Policy

41 PHIL 269
Facts:
> On Sept. 24 1917, Herrer made an application to SunLife through its office in Manila for life annuity.
> 2 days later, he paid the sum of 6T to the companys anager in its Manila office and was given a
receipt.
> On Nov. 26, 1917, the head office gave notice of acceptance by cable to Manila. On the same date,
the Manila office prepared a letter notifying Herrer that his application has been accepted and this was
placed in the ordinary channels of transmission, but as far as known was never actually mailed
and never received by Herrer.
> Herrer died on Dec. 20, 1917. The plaintiff as administrator of Herrers estate brought this action to
recover the 6T paid by the deceased.

Issue:

Whether or not the insurance contract was perfected.

Held:
NO.
The contract for life annuity was NOT perfected because it had NOT been proved satisfactorily that the
acceptance of the application ever came to the knowledge of the applicant. An acceptance of an offer of
insurance NOT actually or constructively communicated to the proposer does NOT make a contract of
insurane, as the locus poenitentiae is ended when an acceptance has passed beyond the control of the
party.

NOTE: Life annuity is the opposite of a life insurance. In life annuity, a big amount is given to the
insurance company, and if after a certain period of time the insured is stil living, he is entitled to regular
smaller amounts for the rest of his life. Examples of Life annuity are pensions. Life Insurance on the
other hand, the insured during the period of the coverage makes small regular payments and upon his
death, the insurer pays a big amount to his beneficiaries.

Insurance Case Digest: Heirs Of Loreto C. Maramag V Maramag (2009)

G.R. No. 181132 June 5, 2009

Lessons Applicable: To whom insurance proceeds payable (Insurance)

FACTS:

Loreto Maramag designated as beneficiary his concubine Eva de Guzman Maramag

Vicenta Maramag and Odessa, Karl Brian, and Trisha Angelie (heirs of Loreto Maramag) and his
concubine Eva de Guzman Maramag, also suspected in the killing of Loreto and his illegitimate
children are claiming for his insurance.
Vicenta alleges that Eva is disqualified from claiming
RTC: Granted - civil code does NOT apply
CA: dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction for filing beyond reglementary period
ISSUE: W/N Eva can claim even though prohibited under the civil code against donation

HELD: YES. Petition is DENIED.

 Any person who is forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be named
beneficiary of a life insurance policy of the person who cannot make any donation to him
If a concubine is made the beneficiary, it is believed that the insurance contract will still remain valid,
but the indemnity must go to the legal heirs and not to the concubine, for evidently, what is prohibited
under Art. 2012 is the naming of the improper beneficiary.
SECTION 53. The insurance proceeds shall be applied exclusively to the proper interest of the
person in whose name or for whose benefit it is made unless otherwise specified in the policy.
GR: only persons entitled to claim the insurance proceeds are either the insured, if still alive; or the
beneficiary, if the insured is already deceased, upon the maturation of the policy.
EX: situation where the insurance contract was intended to benefit third persons who are not parties
to the same in the form of favorable stipulations or indemnity. In such a case, third parties may
directly sue and claim from the insurer
It is only in cases where the insured has not designated any beneficiary, or when the designated
beneficiary is disqualified by law to receive the proceeds, that the insurance policy proceeds shall
redound to the benefit of the estate of the insured