UCPB v. Masagana Telamart

UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. INC. V.
MASAGANA TELAMART
April 4, 2001 | Davide, CJ
Definition of Synallagmatic
AKGL
DOCTRINE: Synallagmatic means a highly reciprocal contract where the rights and obligations of the
parties correlate and mutually correspond
CASE SUMMARY: Masagana’s properties were razed by fire. The event occurred after the expiration
of the insurance on such properties. But, UCPB has been granting a 60-90 day credit term for years
in favor of Masagana.
I’ve rearranged the parts of the digest to emphasize the definition of synallagmatic, which is relevant
to the discussion according to the syllabus. But, I’ve also included the main opinion for context.
NOTES:
Justice Vitug’s Dissent
 An essential characteristic of an insurance is its being synallagmatic, a highly
reciprocal contract where the rights and obligations of the parties correlate and
mutually correspond. The insurer assumes the risk of loss which an insured might suffer in
consideration of premium payments under a risk-distributing device – distribute actual losses
among a group of persons, bearing similar risks, who make ratable contributions to a
fund.
 A requirement imposed by way of State regulation upon insurers is the maintenance of an
adequate legal reserve in favor of those claiming under their policies. The integrity of this legal
reserve is threatened and undermined if a credit arrangement on the payment of premium
were to be sanctioned.
 Under the present law, the policy is not valid and binding unless and until the premium is
paid. If the insurer wants to favor the insured by making the policy binding notwithstanding the
non-payment of premium, a mere credit agreement would not be sufficient. The remedy would
be for the insurer to acknowledge in the policy that premiums were paid although they were
not.
 Estoppel cannot create a contract of insurance. Essential is the premium payment to the
creation of the vinculum juris.
FACTS:
 For a number of years, Masagana Telemart has been obtaining insurance policies for its
properties from UCPB General Insurance. UCPB has been granting Masagana a 60-90 day
credit term for payment of the premiums.
 On June 13, 1992, Masagana’s properties located along Taft Avenue, Pasay City were razed
by fire. However, said policies expired last May 22, 1992.
 On July 13, 1992, Masagan tendered, and UCPB accepted, 5 Manager's Checks in the total
amount of P225,753.45 as renewal premium payments. But, eventually, UCPB returned the
checks and refused to give the claims for the razed properties.
ISSUE: W/N Section 77 of the Insurance Code of 1978 (P.D. No. 1460) must be strictly applied to
Masagana advantage despite its practice of granting a 60- to 90-day credit term for the payment of
premium? NO! They are both estopped. UCPB must honor such claim.
RULING:
UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. INC. V. MASAGANA TELAMART
 Section 77 (Insurance Code) does not restate the portion of Section 72 (Insurance Act)
expressly permitting an agreement to extend the period to pay the premium. But there are
exceptions:
o in case of a life or industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies
o Any acknowledgment in a policy or contract of insurance of the receipt of premium is
conclusive evidence of its payment, so far as to make the policy binding,
notwithstanding any stipulation therein that it shall not be binding until premium is
actually paid. (Sec 78 of Insurance Code)
o if the parties have agreed to the payment in installments of the premium and partial
payment has been made at the time of loss
o Section 77 merely precludes the parties from stipulating that the policy is valid even if
premiums are not paid, but does not expressly prohibit an agreement granting credit
extension, and such an agreement is not contrary to morals, good customs, public order
or public policy
o Estoppel
 There is nothing in Section 77 which prohibits the parties in an insurance contract to provide a
credit term within which to pay the premiums. That agreement is not against the law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy (Art. 1306).
 It would be unjust and inequitable if recovery on the policy would not be permitted against
UCPB, which had consistently granted a 60- to 90-day credit term for the payment of
premiums despite its full awareness of Section 77. Estoppel bars it from taking refuge under
said Section, since Masagana relied in good faith on such practice.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Decision in this case of 15 June 1999 is RECONSIDERED and
SET ASIDE, and a new one is hereby entered DENYING the instant petition.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
SEC. 77. An insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to
the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of
insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof
has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period
provision applies.

UCPB v. Masagana Telamart

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCPB v. Masagana Telamart

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCPB v. Masagana Telamart

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. INC. V.

You might also like