Concealment and Representation

Case #2, Insular Life Assurance Co. vs. Feliciano

74 Phil. 468, G.R. No. L-47593, 29 December 1943
Ozaeta, J.

Facts: Evaristo Feliciano signed his application for insurance with Insular Life Assurance
Company in October 12, 1934. In said application, it was indicated (1) that he believes that he is a
proper subject of life insurance; (2) that when asked if he ever suffered from any ailment or disease of
the lungs, pleurisy, pneumonia or asthma, Evaristo answered in the negative; and (3) his acceptance of
the policy shall constitute his ratification of any corrections or additions made by the agents whom he
did not authorize. When Evaristo died on September 29, 1935, a Dr. Trepp, who had taken pictures of
his lungs, informed his brother Serafin that Evaristo was already in a very serious and practically
hopeless condition nothwitstanding the indications made in the application. Hence this case, where
Insular Life insists that upon the facts of the case the policies in question are null and void ab initio and
that all that the respondents are entitled to is the refund of the premiums paid thereon.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the acts of the agents bind Evaristo Feliciano.
2. Whether or not Evaristo acted in connivance of his agents.
3. Whether or not the policies are void ab initio.

Held:

1. When Evaristo Feliciano, the applicant for insurance, signed the application in blank
and authorized the soliciting agent and/or the medical examiner of the Company to write the answers
for him, he made them his own agents for that purpose, and he was responsible for their acts in that
connection. If they falsified the answers for him, he could not evade the responsibility for the
falsification. He was not supposed to sign the application in blank. He knew that the answers to the
questions therein contained would be "the basis of the policy," and for that very reason he was required
with his signature to vouch for the truth thereof.

2. Moreover, from the facts of the case we cannot escape the conclusion that the insured
acted in connivance with the soliciting agent and the medical examiner of the Company in accepting
the policies in question. Above the signature of the applicant is the printed statement or representation:
"* * * I am a proper subject for life insurance." In an‐ other sheet of the same application and above
another signature of the applicant was also printed this statement: "That the said policy shall not take
effect until the first premium has been paid and the policy has been delivered to and accepted by me,
while I am in good health." When the applicant signed the application he was "having difficulty in
breathing, * * * with a very high fever." He had gone three times to the Santol Sanatorium and had
X-ray pictures taken of his lungs. He therefore knew that he was not "a proper subject for life
insurance." When he accepted the policy, he knew that he was not in good health.

3. From all the facts and circumstances of this case, we are constrained to conclude that
the insured was a coparticipant, and coresponsible with Agent David and Medical Ex aminer Valdez, in
the fraudulent procurement of the policies in question and that by reason thereof said policies are void
ab initio.