Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 143 views

    DIGEST 1, PEREZ vs. CA, BF LIFEMAN, GR. 112329

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    The Supreme Court ruled that no contract of insurance was perfected between the deceased applicant and the insurance company. The contract required the policy to be delivered and accepted by the applicant while in good health, but the applicant had died before the policy was issued. As such, the conditions for a binding contract had not been met. Additionally, the Court found no gross negligence by the insurance company in processing the late applicant's request, as the time period involved was reasonable. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay out on the additional insurance requested by the deceased applicant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DIGEST 1, PEREZ vs. CA, BF LIFEMAN, GR. 112329

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    143 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that no contract of insurance was perfected between the deceased applicant and the insurance company. The contract required the policy to be delivered and accepted by the applicant while in good health, but the applicant had died before the policy was issued. As such, the conditions for a binding contract had not been met. Additionally, the Court found no gross negligence by the insurance company in processing the late applicant's request, as the time period involved was reasonable. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay out on the additional insurance requested by the deceased applicant.

    Original Title

    DIGEST 1, PEREZ vs. CA, BF LIFEMAN, GR. 112329.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that no contract of insurance was perfected between the deceased applicant and the insurance company. The contract required the policy to be delivered and accepted by the applicant while in good health, but the applicant had died before the policy was issued. As such, the conditions for a binding contract had not been met. Additionally, the Court found no gross negligence by the insurance company in processing the late applicant's request, as the time period involved was reasonable. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay out on the additional insurance requested by the deceased applicant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    143 views3 pages

    DIGEST 1, PEREZ vs. CA, BF LIFEMAN, GR. 112329

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    The Supreme Court ruled that no contract of insurance was perfected between the deceased applicant and the insurance company. The contract required the policy to be delivered and accepted by the applicant while in good health, but the applicant had died before the policy was issued. As such, the conditions for a binding contract had not been met. Additionally, the Court found no gross negligence by the insurance company in processing the late applicant's request, as the time period involved was reasonable. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay out on the additional insurance requested by the deceased applicant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    INSURANCE DIGEST (2)

    PEREZ vs. CA, BF LIFEMAN, GR. 112329

     Insured initially
     Additional insurance taken
     Died before the additional insurance was approved/ Approved only after he had died - Papers
    got stuck in Gumaca; not sent to Manila
     Also, since he died already, the acceptance by the insurance company of the application paper
    was not communicated to him for his acceptance too.
     No perfected contract of insurance

    RULING

    Insurance is a contract whereby, for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the
    other for loss on a specified subject by specified perils.7 A contract, on the other hand, is a meeting of
    the minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other to give something
    or to render some service.8 Under Article 1318 of the Civil Code, there is no contract unless the
    following requisites concur:

    (1)Consent of the contracting parties;

    (2)Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;

    (3)Cause of the obligation which is established.

    Consent must be manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the
    cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute.

    When Primitivo filed an application for insurance, paid P2,075.00 and submitted the results of his
    medical examination, his application was subject to the acceptance of private respondent BF Lifeman
    Insurance Corporation. The perfection of the contract of insurance between the deceased and
    respondent corporation was further conditioned upon compliance with the following requisites stated in
    the application form:

    “there shall be no contract of insurance unless and until a policy is issued on this application and that
    the said policy shall not take effect until the premium has been paid and the policy delivered to and
    accepted by me/us in person while I/We, am/are in good health.”9

    The assent of private respondent BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation therefore was not given when it
    merely received the application form and all the requisite supporting papers of the applicant. Its assent
    was given when it issues a corresponding policy to the applicant. Under the abovementioned provision,
    it is only when the applicant pays the premium and receives and accepts the policy while he is in good
    health that the contract of insurance is deemed to have been perfected.

    It is not disputed, however, that when Primitivo died on November 25, 1987, his application papers for
    additional insurance coverage were still with the branch office of respondent corporation in Gumaca and
    it was only two days later, or on November 27, 1987, when Lalog personally delivered the application
    papers to the head office in Manila. Consequently, there was absolutely no way the acceptance of the
    application could have been communicated to the applicant for the latter to accept inasmuch as the
    applicant at the time was already dead. In the case of Enriquez vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,10
    recovery on the life insurance of the deceased was disallowed on the ground that the contract for
    annuity was not perfected since it had not been proved satisfactorily that the acceptance of the
    application ever reached the knowledge of the applicant.

    Petitioner insists that the condition imposed by respondent corporation that a policy must have been
    delivered to and accepted by the proposed insured in good health is potestative being dependent upon
    the will of the corporation and is therefore null and void.

    We do not agree.

    A potestative condition depends upon the exclusive will of one of the parties. For this reason, it is
    considered void. Article 1182 of the New Civil Code states: When the fulfillment of the condition
    depends upon the sole will of the debtor, the conditional obligation shall be void.

    In the case at bar, the following conditions were imposed by the respondent company for the perfection
    of the contract of insurance:

    (a)a policy must have been issued;

    (b)the premiums paid; and

    (c)the policy must have been delivered to and accepted by the applicant while he is in good health.

    The condition imposed by the corporation that the policy must have been delivered to and accepted by
    the applicant while he is in good health can hardly be considered as a potestative or facultative
    condition. On the contrary, the health of the applicant at the time of the delivery of the policy is beyond
    the control or will of the insurance company. Rather, the condition is a suspensive one whereby the
    acquisition of rights depends upon the happening of an event which constitutes the condition. In this
    case, the suspensive condition was the policy must have been delivered and accepted by the applicant
    while he is in good health. There was non-fulfillment of the condition, however, inasmuch as the
    applicant was already dead at the time the policy was issued. Hence, the non-fulfillment of the condition
    resulted in the non-perfection of the contract.

    As stated above, a contract of insurance, like other contracts, must be assented to by both parties either
    in person or by their agents. So long as an application for insurance has not been either accepted or
    rejected, it is merely an offer or proposal to make a contract. The contract, to be binding from the date
    of application, must have been a completed contract, one that leaves nothing to be done, nothing to be
    completed, nothing to be passed upon, or determined, before it shall take effect. There can be no
    contract of insurance unless the minds of the parties have met in agreement.11

    Prescinding from the foregoing, respondent corporation cannot be held liable for gross negligence. It
    should be noted that an application is a mere offer which requires the overt act of the insurer for it to
    ripen into a contract. Delay in acting on the application does not constitute acceptance even though the
    insured has forwarded his first premium with his application. The corporation may not be penalized for
    the delay in the processing of the application papers. Moreover, while it may have taken some time for
    the application papers to reach the main office, in the case at bar, the same was acted upon less than a
    week after it was received. The processing of applications by respondent corporation normally takes two
    to three weeks, the longest being a month.12 In this case, however, the requisite medical examination
    was undergone by the deceased on November 1, 1987; the application papers were forwarded to the
    head office on November 27, 1987; and the policy was issued on December 2, 1987. Under these
    circumstances, we hold that the delay could not be deemed unreasonable so as to constitute gross
    negligence.

    A final note. It has not escaped our notice that the Court of Appeals declared Insurance Policy 056300
    for P50,000.00 null and void and rescinded. The Court of Appeals corrected this in its Resolution of the
    motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, thus:

    “Anent the appearance of the word ‘rescinded’ in the dispositive portion of the decision, to which
    defendant-appellee attaches undue significance and makes capital of, it is clear that the use of the
    words ‘and rescinded’ is, as it is hereby declared, a superfluity. It is apparent from the context of the
    decision that the insurance policy in question was found null and void, and did not have to be
    ‘rescinded.’ ”13

    True, rescission presupposes the existence of a valid contract. A contract which is null and void is no
    contract at all and hence could not be the subject of rescission.

    WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 35529 is AFFIRMED
    insofar as it declared Insurance Policy No. 056300 for P50,000.00 issued by BF Lifeman Insurance
    Corporation of no force and effect and hence null and void. No costs.

    SO ORDERED. Perez vs. Court of Appeals, 323 SCRA 613, G.R. No. 112329 January 28, 2000

    You might also like