FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 109937. March 21, 1994.]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and the ESTATE OF THE LATE JUAN B.
DANS, represented by CANDIDA G. DANS, and the DBP
MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE POOL, respondents.

DECISION

QUIASON, J :
p

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules
of Court to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV
No. 26434 and its resolution denying reconsideration thereof.
We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification.
I
In May 1987, Juan B. Dans, together with his wife Candida, his son and
daughter-in-law, applied for a loan of P500,000.00 with the Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP), Basilan Branch. As the principal mortgagor, Dans, then 76 years
of age, was advised by DBP to obtain a mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) with
the DBP Mortgage Redemption Insurance Pool (DBP MRI Pool).
A loan, in the reduced amount of P300,000.00, was approved by DBP on
August 4, 1987 and released on August 11, 1987. From the proceeds of the loan, DBP
deducted the amount of P1,476.00 as payment for the MRI premium. On August 15,
1987, Dans accomplished and submitted the "MRI Application for Insurance" and the
"Health Statement for DBP MRI Pool."
Copyright 1994-2015

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2014

On August 20, 1987, the MRI premium of Dans, less the DBP service fee of 10
percent, was credited by DBP to the savings account of the DBP MRI Pool.
Accordingly, the DBP MRI Pool was advised of the credit.
Cdpr

On September 3, 1987, Dans died of cardiac arrest. The DBP, upon notice,
relayed this information to the DBP MRI Pool. On September 23, 1987, the DBP MRI
Pool notified DBP that Dans was not eligible for MRI coverage, being over the
acceptance age limit of 60 years at the time of application.
LibLex

On October 21, 1987, DBP apprised Candida Dans of the disapproval of her
late husband's MRI application. The DBP offered to refund the premium of P1,476.00
which the deceased had paid, but Candida Dans refused to accept the same,
demanding payment of the face value of the MRI or an amount equivalent to the loan.
She, likewise, refused to accept an ex gratia settlement of P30,000.00, which the DBP
later offered.
On February 10, 1989, respondent Estate, through Candida Dans as
administratrix, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Basilan,
against DBP and the insurance pool for "Collection of Sum of Money with Damages."
Respondent Estate alleged that Dans became insured by the DBP MRI Pool when
DBP, with full knowledge of Dans' age at the time of application, required him to
apply for MRI, and later collected the insurance premium thereon. Respondent Estate
therefore prayed: (1) that the sum of P139,500.00, which it paid under protest for the
loan, be reimbursed; (2) that the mortgage debt of the deceased be declared fully paid;
and (3) that damages be awarded.
LexLib

The DBP and the DBP MRI Pool separately filed their answers, with the
former asserting a cross-claim against the latter.
At the pre-trial, DBP and the DBP MRI Pool admitted all the documents and
exhibits submitted by respondent Estate. As a result of these admissions, the trial court
narrowed down the issues and, without opposition from the parties, found the case
ripe for summary judgment. Consequently, the trial court ordered the parties to submit
their respective position papers and documentary evidence, which may serve as basis
for the judgment.
cdrep

On March 10, 1990, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent
Estate and against DBP. The DBP MRI Pool, however, was absolved from liability,
after the trial court found no privity of contract between it and the deceased. The trial
court declared DBP in estoppel for having led Dans into applying for MRI and
Copyright 1994-2015

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2014

actually collecting the premium and the service fee, despite knowledge of his age
ineligibility. The dispositive portion of the decision read as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration and in the
furtherance of justice and equity, the Court finds judgment for the plaintiff and
against Defendant DBP, ordering the latter:
1.
To return and reimburse plaintiff the amount of
P139,500.00 plus legal rate of interest as amortization payment paid
under protest;
2.
To consider the mortgage loan of P300,000.00 including all
interest accumulated or otherwise to have been settled, satisfied or
set-off by virtue of the insurance coverage of the late Juan B. Dans; .
3.

To pay plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's

fees;
4.
To pay plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as costs of
litigation and other expenses, and other relief just and equitable.
The Counterclaims of Defendants DBP and DBP-MRI POOL are hereby
dismissed. The Cross-claim of defendant DBP is likewise dismissed" (Rollo, p.
79)

The DBP appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated September 7,

1992, the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. The DBP's
motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated April 20, 1993.
Hence, this recourse.
II
When Dans applied for MRI, he filled up and personally signed a "Health
Statement for DBP Pool" (Exh. "5-Bank") with the following declaration:
"I hereby declare and agree that all the statements and answers contained
herein are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
form part of my application for insurance. It is understood and agreed that no
insurance coverage shall be effected unless and until this application is
approved and the full premium is paid during my continued good health"
(Records, p. 40).
Copyright 1994-2015

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2014

Under the aforementioned provisions, the MRI coverage shall take effect: (1)
when the application shall be approved by the insurance pool; and (2) when the full
premium is paid during the continued good health of the applicant. These two
conditions, being joined conjunctively, must concur.
Undisputably, the power to approve MRI applications is lodged with the DBP
MRI Pool. The pool, however, did not approve the application of Dans. There is also
no showing that it accepted the sum of P1,476.00, which DBP credited to its account
with full knowledge that it was payment for Dan's premium. There was, as a result, no
perfected contract of insurance; hence, the DBP MRI Pool cannot be held liable on a
contract that does not exist.
The liability of DBP is another matter.

prcd

It was DBP, as a matter of policy and practice, that required Dans, the
borrower, to secure MRI coverage. Instead of allowing Dans to look for his own
insurance carrier or some other form of insurance policy, DBP compelled him to apply
with the DBP MRI Pool for MRI coverage. When Dan's loan was released on August
11, 1987, DBP already deducted from the proceeds thereof the MRI premium. Four
days latter, DBP made Dans fill up and sign his application for MRI, as well as his
health statement. The DBP later submitted both the application form and health
statement to the DBP MRI Pool at the DBP Main Building, Makati Metro Manila. As
service fee, DBP deducted 10 percent of the premium collected by it from Dans.
In dealing with Dans, DBP was wearing two legal hats: the first as a lender,
and the second as an insurance agent.
As an insurance agent, DBP made Dans go through the motion of applying for
said insurance, thereby leading him and his family to believe that they had already
fulfilled all the requirements for the MRI and that the issuance of their policy was
forthcoming. Apparently, DBP had full knowledge that Dan's application was never
going to be approved. The maximum age for MRI acceptance is 60 years as clearly
and specifically provided in Article 1 of the Group Mortgage Redemption Insurance
Policy signed in 1984 by all the insurance companies concerned (Exh. "1-Pool").
Under Article 1987 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "the agent who acts as
such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly
binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party
sufficient notice of his powers."
Copyright 1994-2015

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2014

The DBP is not authorized to accept applications for MRI when its clients are
more than 60 years of age (Exh. "1-Pool"). Knowing all the while that Dans was
ineligible for MRI coverage because of his advanced age, DBP exceeded the scope of
its authority when it accepted Dan's application for MRI by collecting the insurance
premium, and deducting its agent's commission and service fee.
The liability of an agent who exceeds the scope of his authority depends upon
whether the third person is aware of the limits of the agent's powers. There is no
showing that Dans knew of the limitation on DBP's authority to solicit applications for
MRI.
LLphil

If the third person dealing with an agent is unaware of the limits of the
authority conferred by the principal on the agent and he (third person) has been
deceived by the non-disclosure thereof by the agent, then the latter is liable for
damages to him (V Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of
the Philippines, p. 422 [1992], citing Sentencia [Cuba] of September 25, 1907). The
rule that the agent is liable when he acts without authority is founded upon the
supposition that there has been some wrong or omission on his part either in
misrepresenting, or in affirming, or concealing the authority under which he assumes
to act (Francisco, V., Agency 307 [1952], citing Hall v. Lauderdale, 46 N.Y. 70, 75).
Inasmuch as the non-disclosure of the limits of the agency carries with it the
implication that a deception was perpetrated on the unsuspecting client, the provisions
of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines come into play.
Article 19 provides:
"Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and
good faith."
LexLib

Article 20 provides:
"Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same."

Article 21 provides:
"Any person, who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage."
Copyright 1994-2015

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2014

The DBP's liability, however, cannot be for the entire value of the insurance
policy. To assume that were it not for DBP's concealment of the limits of its authority,
Dans would have secured an MRI from another insurance company, and therefore
would have been fully insured by the time he died, is highly speculative. Considering
his advanced age, there is no absolute certainty that Dans could obtain an insurance
coverage from another company. It must also be noted that Dans died almost
immediately, i.e., on the nineteenth day after applying for the MRI, and on the
twenty-third day from the date of release of his loan.
LLphil

One is entitles to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss

suffered by him as he has duly proved (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 2199).
Damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must be actually
proved with a reasonable degree of certainty (Refractories Corporation v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 539 [1989]; Choa Tek Hee v. Philippine
Publishing Co., 34 Phil. 447 [1916]). Speculative damages are too remote to be
included in an accurate estimate of damages (Sun Life Assurance v. Rueda Hermanos,
37 Phil. 844 [1918]).
While Dans is not entitled to compensatory damages, he is entitled to moral
damages. No proof of pecuniary loss is required in the assessment of said kind of
damages (Civil Code of Philippines, Art. 2216). The same may be recovered in acts
referred to in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
The assessment of moral damages is left to the discretion of the court
according to the circumstances of each case (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art.
2216). Considering that DBP had offered to pay P30,000.00 to respondent Estate in ex
gratia settlement of its claim and that DBP's non-disclosure of the limits of its
authority amounted to a deception to its client, an award of moral damages in the
amount of P50,000.00 would be reasonable.
The award of attorney's fees is also just and equitable under the circumstances
(Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 2208 [11]).
LLphil

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R.-CV No.

26434 is MODIFIED and petitioner DBP is ORDERED: (1) to REIMBURSE
respondent Estate of Juan B. Dans the amount of P1,476.00 with legal interest from
the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid; and (2) to PAY said Estate the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and the amount of
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as attorney's fees. With costs against petitioner.
Copyright 1994-2015

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2014

SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ ., concur.

Copyright 1994-2015

CD Technologies Asia, Inc.

Jurisprudence 1901 to 2014