Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


L-47593 December 29, 1943 OZAETA, J.: Facts: In a four-to-three decision promulgated on September 13, 1941, 1 this Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in favor of the respondents and against the petitioner for the sum of P25,000, representing the value of two insurance policies issued by the petitioner on the life of Evaristo Feliciano. A motion to reconsider and set aside said decision has been filed by the petitioner, and both parties have submitted exhaustive and luminous written arguments in support of their respective contentions. ISSUE: WON Insular Life was bound by their agents acts and liable to pay respondent. Held: The petitioner 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. After a careful reexamination of the facts and the law, we are persuaded that petitioner's contention is correct. To the reasons adduced in the dissenting opinion heretofore published, we only desire to add the following considerations: When Evaristo Feliciano, the applicant for insurance, signed the application in blank and authorized the soliciting agent and/or 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 every reason he was required with his signature to vouch for truth thereof. 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. 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 Examiner Valdez, in the fraudulent procurement of the policies in question and that by reason thereof said policies are void ab initio. Wherefore, the motion for reconsideration is sustained and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed. Let another judgment be entered in favor of the respondents and against the petitioner for the refund of the premiums amounting to P1,389, with legal interest thereon from the date of the complaint, and without any finding as to costs.

Separate Opinions YULO, C.J., concurring: HONTIVEROS, J., dissenting: The mere fact that the insured signed at the bottom of the application for insurance when some of its lines intended for answers to certain questions were still in blank, is a fact which should be taken into account, together with the other fact that Evaristo Feliciano does not know English, the language in which those documents are written. In support of this dissenting opinion, the following authorities may be cited: The mere failure of the insured to inform himself of the insertion of false answers in the application which has been filled out by the agent of the insurer does not convict him of lack of good faith. (Vol. 5, Cooley's Briefs on Insurance, 2nd Ed., p. 4136, and many cases cited.) The insured is not chargeable with such negligence as will render him liable for false answers inserted by the agent merely because he signed the application in blank and trusted the agent to fill out by the agent, without reading it. (Id., p. 4136, and many cases cited.) An illiterate person or one who does not understand the English language (as is the case with Evaristo Feliciano) is not guilty of inexcusable negligence in failing to read the application or having it read to him, nor can it be said that such person deliberately made a false statement because he did not read over the application. (81 ALR 865, 866, W. 117 ALR 796.) Nor can it be said that the assured, who has fully, frankly, truthfully, and in good faith answered all the required questions, is guilty of negligence in signing, without reading, the application which is thereupon prepared by the agent. He is justified in assuming that the agent, has, with equal good faith.