2.filipino Merchants v. CA
2.filipino Merchants v. CA
2.filipino Merchants v. CA
CA
(1989)
G.R. No. 85141 November 28, 1989
Lessons Applicable: Existing Interest (Insurance)
Laws Applicable: Article 1523 of the Civil Code,Section 13 of the
Insurance Code
FACTS:
GR: the burden of proof is upon the insured to show that a loss
arose from a covered peril, but under an "all risks" policy the
burden is not on the insured to prove the precise cause of loss or
damage for which it seeks compensation. 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. - none was shown = liable
Section 13 of the Insurance Code defines insurable interest in
property as every interest in property, whether real or personal,
or any relation thereto, or liability in respect thereof, of such
nature that a contemplated peril might directly damnify the
insured.
As vendee/consignee of the goods in transit has such existing
interest. His interest over the goods is based on the perfected
contract of sale. The perfected contract of sale between him and
the shipper of the goods operates to vest in him an equitable title
even before delivery or before be performed the conditions of the
sale. The contract of shipment, whether under F.O.B., C.I.F., or C.
& F. as in this case, is immaterial in the determination of whether
the vendee has an insurable interest or not in the goods in transit.