Nario v.

Philamlife, 20 SCRA 434 (1967)

Reyes, JBL, J.:

Facts:
Alejandra Santos-Nario was issued a life insurance policy by Philamlife under a 20 year endowment plan,
with face value of 5,000 pesos, making her husband Delfin and minor son Ernesto as irrevocable
beneficiaries. About four years after, Mrs. Nario applied, as allowed under her insurance policy, a loan
from Philamlife to pay for school expenses of their son. Philamlife denied such application, stating that
they must secure court authorization in a guardianship proceeding. When Mrs. Nario surrendered her
insurance policy, as was allowed by such, to get the amount of P520, Philamlife refused and gave the
same abovementioned reason. So, Mrs. Nario and her husband brought suit in the CFI to demand the
cash value upon surrender of the insurance policy. Philamlife contended that the disposition of a minors
property (e.g. policy loan and surrender) must be with court authority, given the insurance policy. The
CFI dismissed the complaint, hence this petition

Issue/s:
Whether or not Sps. Nario must secure court authorization for Philamlife to pay the interest of the
policy amounting to P520

Held:
The Court held that of the interest of the insurance policy, which is P2500, needs the approval of court
for it to be alienated or disposed. These are not mere acts of management or administration. As also
provided by our Revised Rules of Court, if a minors property exceeds P2,000, the guardian/s must file a
guardianship bond that must be approved by the court. Otherwise, they cannot possibly exercise the
powers vested on them, as legal administrators of their child's property, under articles 320 and 326 of
the then Civil Code. Even without such rules, it is still provided that a special power would be needed, as
provided by the Civil Code, in order to loan or borrow money, and not just a general power of being an
agent.

Filipino Merchants v. CA (GR no. 85141, 1989)

Regalado, J.:

Facts:
Choa Tiek Seng insured its shipment of fishmeal bound for Manila with the Filipino Merchants Insurance
Co., Inc. (Fil Merchants hereinafter). Choa insured said shipment with defendant insurance company
under said cargo Policy No. M-2678 for the sum of P267,653.59 for the goods described as 600 metric
tons of fishmeal in new gunny bags of 90 kilos each against all risks under warehouse to warehouse
terms. Upon initial survey of the arrastre contractor E. Razon, it found out that some of the cargo were in
bad condition. The final report came out that the bad order bags totaled 227 bags amounting to 12,148
kilos, to which a sum of P51,568.62 was being claimed by Choa from Fil Merchants. A complaint for the
sum then was filed by Choa against Fil Merchants; Fil Merchants filed a third party complaint against
Compagnie Maritime Des Chargeurs Reunis (vessel) and arrastre contractor. The court ordered the sum
to be paid by Fil Merchants, notwithstanding that the amount paid by Fil Merchants shall be paid jointly
and severally by the third party defendants Compagnie and E. Razon. On Appeal, the CA affirmed the
decision with modification, hence this petition
Issue/s:
Whether or not under the all risks clause of the marine insurance policy Fil Merchants be held liable
Whether or not Choa had insurable interest on the cargo, making the claim under the policy null and
void

Held:
On the first issue, the Court explained that the very nature of the term "all risks" must be given a broad
and comprehensive meaning as covering any loss other than a willful and fraudulent act of the insured.
The term "all risks" cannot be given a strained technical meaning, the language of the clause under the
Institute Cargo Clauses being unequivocal and clear, to the effect that it extends to all damages/losses
suffered by the insured cargo except (a) loss or damage or expense proximately caused by delay, and (b)
loss or damage or expense proximately caused by the inherent vice or nature of the subject matter
insured. The insured under an "all risks insurance policy" has the initial burden of proving that the cargo
was in good condition when the policy attached and that the cargo was damaged when unloaded from
the vessel; thereafter, the burden then shifts to the insurer to show the exception to the coverage.
Hence, the insurer is liable.

On the second issue, The Court upheld the ruling of the respondent court that private respondent, as
consignee of the goods in transit under an invoice containing the terms under "C & F Manila," has
insurable interest in said goods. Insurable interest in property may consist in (a) an existing interest; (b)
an inchoate interest founded on an existing interest; or (c) an expectancy, coupled with an existing
interest in that out of which the expectancy arises. Hence, Choas interest on the goods, as
consignee/vendee is the perfected contract of sale upon purchasing such fishmeal. The perfected
contract of sale even without delivery vests in the vendee an equitable title, an existing interest over the
goods sufficient to be the subject of insurance.