Perez v.

CA- Perfection of the Contract of Insurance

323 SCRA 613 (2000)
Facts:

> Primitivo Perez had been insured with the BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation since
1980 for P20,000.00.

> In October 1987, an agent of Lifeman, Rodolfo Lalog, visited Perez in Quezon and
convinced him to apply for additional insurance coverage of P50,000.00, to avail of
the ongoing promotional discount of P400.00 if the premium were paid annually.

> Primitivo B. Perez accomplished an application form for the additional insurance
coverage. Virginia A. Perez, his wife, paid P2,075.00 to Lalog. The receipt issued
by Lalog indicated the amount received was a "deposit."

> Unfortunately, Lalog lost the application form accomplished by Perez and so on
October 28, 1987, he asked the latter to fill up another application form. On
November 1, 1987, Perez was made to undergo the required medical examination, which
he passed.

> Lalog forwarded the application for additional insurance of Perez, together with
all its supporting papers, to the office of BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation in
Quezon which office was supposed to forward the papers to the Manila office.

> On November 25, 1987, Perez died while he was riding a banca which capsized
during a storm.

> At the time of his death, his application papers for the additional insurance were
still with the Quezon office. Lalog testified that when he went to follow up the papers,
he found them still in the Quezon office and so he personally brought the papers to the
Manila office of BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation. It was only on November 27, 1987
that said papers were received in Manila.

> Without knowing that Perez died on November 25, 1987, BF Lifeman Insurance
Corporation approved the application and issued the corresponding policy for the
P50,000.00 on December 2, 1987

> Virginia went to Manila to claim the benefits under the insurance policies of the
deceased. She was paid P40,000.00 under the first insurance policy for P20,000.00
(double indemnity in case of accident) but the insurance company refused to pay the
claim under the additional policy coverage of P50,000.00, the proceeds of which
amount to P150,000.00 in view of a triple indemnity rider on the insurance policy.

> In its letter of January 29, 1988 to Virginia A. Perez, the insurance company
maintained that the insurance for P50,000.00 had not been perfected at the time of
the death of Primitivo Perez. Consequently, the insurance company refunded the
amount of P2,075.00 which Virginia Perez had paid

> Lifeman filed for the rescission and the declaration of nullity. Perez, on the other
hand, averred that the deceased had fulfilled all his prestations under the contract
and all the elements of a valid contract are present.

> RTC ruled in favor of Perez. CA reversed.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a perfected additional insurance contract.

Held:

The contract was not perfected.

Insurance is a contract whereby, for a stipulated consideration, one party

undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specified subject by specified
perils. A contract, on the other hand, is a meeting of the minds between two
persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other to give something or
to render some service.

Consent must be manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon
the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be
certain and the acceptance absolute. When Primitivo filed an application for insurance,
paid P2,075.00 and submitted the results of his medical examination, his application
was subject to the acceptance of private respondent BF Lifeman Insurance
Corporation. The perfection of the contract of insurance between the deceased and
respondent corporation was further conditioned upon compliance with the following
requisites stated in the application form:
"there shall be no contract of insurance unless and until a policy is issued on this
application and that the said policy shall not take effect until the premium has been
paid and the policy delivered to and accepted by me/us in person while I/We, am/are
in good health."

The assent of private respondent BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation therefore was

not given when it merely received the application form and all the requisite
supporting papers of the applicant. Its assent was given when it issues a
corresponding policy to the applicant. Under the abovementioned provision, it is only
when the applicant pays the premium and receives and accepts the policy while he
is in good health that the contract of insurance is deemed to have been perfected.

It is not disputed, however, that when Primitivo died on November 25, 1987, his
application papers for additional insurance coverage were still with the branch
office of respondent corporation in Gumaca and it was only two days later, or on
November 27, 1987, when Lalog personally delivered the application papers to the
head office in Manila. Consequently, there was absolutely no way the acceptance of the
application could have been communicated to the applicant for the latter to accept
inasmuch as the applicant at the time was already dead.
Souther Luzon Employee’s Association v. Golpeo -
Insurance Beneficiaries

96 PHIL 83
Facts:

> SLEA is composed of laborers and employees of the LTBC and BTC (now BLTB Co.),
and one of its purposes is mutual aid of its members and their dependents in case of
death.

> Roman Concepcion was a member until his death in 1950.

> In 1949, SLEA adopted a resolution providing that: A member may, if he chooses, put
down his common law wife and/or children he had with her as his beneficiaries; and such
person so named by the member will be the sole persons to be recognized by SLEA
regarding claims for condolence contributions.

> Roman listed as his beneficiaries Aquilina Maloles and their 4 children. After his death,
SLEA was able to collect voluntary contribution from its members amounting to P2,205.

> Three sets of claimants to the amount presented themselves to the association namely:

o Juanita Golpeo, legal wife, and her children

o Aquilina Maloles, the common law wife, and her children

o Elsie Hicban, another common law wife of Roman, and her child.

> SLEA then filed an action for interpleader against the 3 conflicting claimants.

> Trial court rendered a decision declaring Maloles and her children the sole beneficiaries
of the amount citing Del Val v. Del Val.

> Only Golpeo appealed. She argues that:

> The insurance code does not apply since the association is not an insurance company
but a mutual benefit association.

> The stipulation between SLEA and Roman was void for being contrary to law, public
morals and public policy, pursuant to Art. 739 of the CC ( donations between persons
guilty of concubinage at the time of donation are void)
Issue:

Whether or not Golpeo, the legal wife is entitled to the amount.

Held:

NO.

First of all, the lower court did not consider the association as a regular insurance
company, but merely ruled that the death benefit in question is analogous to
insurance. Besides, even the Administrative Code describes a mutual benefit company
as one which provides any method of life insurance among its members out of dues or
assessments collected from its membership.

Secondly, without considering the intimation in the brief for Maloles that Golpeo, by her
silence and actions had acquiesced in the illicit relations between her husband and
Maloles, Golpeo’s argument would certainly NOT apply to the children of Maloles likewise
named beneficiaries by the deceased. As a matter of fact, the NCC recognizes certain
successional rights of illegitimate children.
Insurance Case Digest: Southern Luzon
Employees' Ass. V. Golpeo, Et Al. (1954)
G.R. No. L-6114 October 30, 1954
Lessons Applicable: Invalid Designation (Insurance)

FACTS:
 Roman A. Concepcion listed as his beneficiaries Aquilina Maloles, Roman M.
Concepcion, Jr., Estela M. Concepcion, Rolando M. Concepcion and Robin M. Concepcion
for the death benefit of an association amounting to P2,505
 Two sets of claimants presented themselves:
 Juanita Golpeo, legal wife and her children, named beneficiaries by the deceased
 Marcelino and Josefina Concepcion intervened in their own right aligning
themselves Juanita Golpeo and her minor children
 Elsie Hicban, another common law wife and her child
 RTC:Aquilina Maloles and her children the sole beneficiaries
 Only the Juanita Golpeo and her minor children and the intervenors Marcelino and
Josefina Concepcion have appealed to this court
ISSUE: W/N Aquilina Molales common-law wife and her illegitimate children can claim
the benefits

HELD: YES.
 Juanita Golpeo, by her silence and actions, had acquiesced in the illicit relations
between her husband and appellee Aquilina Maloles
 new Civil Code recognized certain successional rights of illegitimate children
Separate Opinions:
 REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring
 I concur in the result for the reason that the contract here involved was perfected
before the new Civil Code took effect, and hence its provisions cannot be made to apply
retroactively