Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > January 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14373 January 30, 1960 - GENERAL INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. NG HUA

106 Phil 1117:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-14373. January 30, 1960.]

GENERAL INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NG HUA, Respondent.

José P. Bengzon, Guido Advincula and Potenciano Villegas, Jr. for Petitioner.

Crispin D. Baizas for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


INSURANCE; CO-INSURANCE; BREACH OF WARRANTY. — Violation of a warranty that there were no other insurances on the property insured entitles the insurer to rescind.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Suit to recover on a fire insurance policy. The insurer presented several defenses in the Manila court of first instance. After trial, it was required to pay.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment was affirmed.

This is now a revision on certiorari, upon the insurer’s insistence on two of its main defenses: prescription and breach of warranty.

The principal facts on which adjudication may rest are these:clubjuris

On April 15, 1952, the defendant General Insurance & Surety Corporation issued its Insurance Policy No. 471, insuring against fire, for one year, the stock in trade of the Central Pomade Factory owned by Ng Hua, the insured. The next day, the Pomade Factory building burned, resulting in destruction by fire of the insured properties. Ng Hua claimed indemnity from the insurer. The policy covered damages up to P10,000.00; but after some negotiations and upon suggestion of the Manila Adjustment Company, he reduced the claim to P5,000.00. Nevertheless, the defendant insurer refused to pay for various reasons, namely (a) action was not filed in time; (b) violation of warranty; (c) submission of fraudulent claim; and (d) failure to pay the premium.

The aforesaid Policy No. 471 contains this stipulation printed on the back thereof;

"3. The Insured shall give notice to the company of any insurance or insurances already effected, or which may subsequently be effected, covering any of the property hereby insured, and unless such notice be given and the particulars of such insurance or insurances be stated in or endorsed on this Policy by or on behalf of the Company before the occurrence of any loss or damage, all benefits under this Policy shall be forfeited." (Italics Ours.)

The face of the policy bore the annotation: "Co-Insurance Declared — NIL"

It is undenied that Ng Hua had obtained fire insurance on the same goods, for the same period of time, in the amount of P20,000.00 from General Indemnity Co. However, the Court of Appeals, referring to the annotation and overruling the defense, held there was no violation of the above clause, inasmuch as "co-insurance exists when a condition of the policy requires the insured to bear ratable proportion of the loss when the value of the insured property exceeds the face value of the policy," hence there is no co-insurance here.

Discussion — Undoubtedly, co-insurance exists under the condition described by the appellate court. But that is one kind of co-insurance. It is not the only situation where co-insurance exists. Other insurers of the same property against the same hazard are sometimes referred to as co-insurers and the ensuing combination as co-insurance. 1 And considering the terms of the policy which required the insured to declare other insurances, the statement in question must be deemed to be a statement (warranty) binding on both insurer and insured, that there were no other insurance on the property. Remember it runs "Co-Insurance declared" ; emphasis on the last word. If "Co-insurance" means what the Court of Appeals says, the annotation served no purpose. It would even be contrary to the policy itself, which in its clause No. 17 made the insured a co-insurer for the excess of the value of the property over the amount of the policy.

The annotation then, must be deemed to be a warranty that the property was not insured by any other policy. Violation thereof entitles the insurer to rescind. (Sec. 69. Insurance Act) Such misrepresentation is fatal in the light of our views in Santa Ana v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd., 55 Phil. 329. The materiality of non-disclosure of other insurance policies is not open to doubt.

Furthermore, even if the annotation were overlooked, the defendant insurer would still be free from liability because there is no question that the policy issued by General Indemnity has not been stated in nor endorsed on Policy No. 471 of defendant. And as stipulated in the above-quoted provisions of such policy "all benefit under this policy shall be forfeited." 2

To avoid the disastrous effect of the misrepresentation or concealment of the other insurance policy, Ng Hua alleges "actual knowledge" on the part of General Insurance of the fact that he had taken out additional insurance with General Indemnity. He does not say when such knowledge was acquired or imparted. If General Insurance knew before issuing its policy or before the fire, such knowledge might overcome the insurer’s defense. 3 However, the Court of Appeals found no evidence of such knowledge. We have read the pages of the stenographic notes cited by Ng Hua and all we gather is evidence of the existence of the insurance with General Indemnity Company. As to knowledge of General Insurance before issuance of its policy or the fire, there was none.

Indeed, this concealment and violation was expressly set up as a special defense in the answer. Yet plaintiff did not, in avoidance, reply nor assert such knowledge. And it is doubtful whether evidence on the point would be admissible under the pleadings. (See Rule 11, sec. 1.)

All the above considerations lead to the conclusion that the defendant insurer successfully established its defense of warranty breach or concealment of the other insurance and/or violation of the provision of the policy abovementioned.

Having reached this conclusion, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the other defenses.

Wherefore, the judgment under review will be revoked, and the defendant insurer (herein petitioner) acquitted from all the liability under the policy. Costs against Respondent. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect to the same subject and interest, there is double insurance under our statute (sec. 86, Insurance Law). The situation is also sometimes described in the texts and cases as concurrent insurance, additional or other insurance, or co-insurance. See Ocean S. S. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 121 Federal Reporter, 882, 887, Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Firemen’s Fund, 100 Pac. (2nd series) 364, 366. Textbooks and treatises in their indexes, list additional insurance, other insurance, and concurrent insurance under "co-insurance." See Vance on Insurance; Couch, Cyclopedia on Insurance); Appelman-Law on Insurance. See specially Vance on Insurance 2nd Ed. p. 78; Oppenheim v. Firemen’s Fund, 138 NW. 777 referred to special conditions in Minnesota.

2. A policy may declare that a violation of specified provisions thereof shall avoid it. (sec. 70, Insurance Law).

3. La O v. Yek Tong Lim Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 55 Phil., 386.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



January-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16413 January 26, 1960 - EMILIO C. SANTOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    106 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-10854 January 27, 1960 - MANILA POLO CLUB v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    106 Phil 885

  • G.R. Nos. L-12091 & L-12092 January 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIM HO

    106 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-9075 January 29, 1960 - S. V. S. PICTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 897

  • G.R. No. L-12476 January 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANGLO CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK

    106 Phil 903

  • G.R. No. L-12573 January 29, 1960 - PAULINA DURAN v. BERNARDINO PAGARIGAN

    106 Phil 907

  • G.R. Nos. L-12614 & L-12615. January 29, 1960 - JUAN ESTELLA, ET., AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL

    106 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12981 January 29, 1960 - IN RE: MARCIANO DEETUANKA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-13194 January 29, 1960 - BUENAVENTURA T. SALDAÑA v. PHILIPPINE GUARANTY CO., INC.

    106 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-13489 January 29, 1960 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JOSE J. GONZALES

    106 Phil 925

  • G.R. No. L-13536 January 29, 1960 - ADRIANO VALDEZ v. RODRIGO OCUMEN

    106 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-13956 January 29, 1960 - ROMULO C. NICOLAS v. FULGENCIO DACARA

    106 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-14027 January 29, 1960 - LIBERTAD ALTAVAS CONLU v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-14306 January 29, 1960 - PABLO CALION v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 943

  • G.R. No. L-14341 January 29, 1960 - MARCIANO SONGAHID v. BENITO CINCO

    106 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-14359 January 29, 1960 - IN RE: SALVADORA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-16360 January 29, 1960 - FILEMON SALCEDO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    106 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-6406 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KUSAIN SAIK

    106 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-9483 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS NANA

    106 Phil 966

  • G.R. No. L-11215 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO BALOYO

    106 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-11430 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS ESTACIO

    106 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-11756 January 30, 1960 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. MA- AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC.

    106 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-11908 January 30, 1960 - FLORA CAMPANERO v. APOLONIO T. COLOMA

    106 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-12105 January 30, 1960 - TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN v. MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN

    106 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-12280 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO TEMPLONUEVO

    106 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-12661 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ARANDA

    106 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-12692 January 30, 1960 - COSMIC LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. AGAPITA MANAOIS

    106 Phil 1015

  • G.R. No. L-12754 January 30, 1960 - ESTANISLAO ALFONSO v. PASAY CITY

    106 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-13146 January 30, 1960 - VALENTIN CASTILLO v. ARTURO SAMONTE

    106 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-13160 January 30, 1960 - BIENVENIDO NERA v. PAULINO GARCIA

    106 Phil 1031

  • G.R. No. L-13274 January 30, 1960 - REMEDIOS SACLOLO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    106 Phil 1038

  • G.R. No. L-13399 January 30, 1960 - ALBERTA VICENCIO v. GAVINO TUMALAD

    106 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-13456 January 30, 1960 - IRINEO C. HAMOY v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

    106 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-13488 January 30, 1960 - MAURO PRIETO v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG

    106 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-13551 January 30, 1960 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ABUNDIO MADRID

    106 Phil 1060

  • G.R. No. L-13564 January 30, 1960 - ANDRES CENTENERA v. NICASIO YATCO

    106 Phil 1064

  • G.R. No. L-13764 January 30, 1960 - RAFAEL RUEDA v. MARCELO JUAN

    106 Phil 1069

  • G.R. No. L-13781 January 30, 1960 - Testate Estate of JOSE J. JAVELLANA v. JOSE JAVELLANA

    106 Phil 1073

  • G.R. No. L-14016 January 30, 1960 - ALFREDO FORMOSO v. DELFIN S. FLORES

    106 Phil 1079

  • G.R. Nos. L-14023 & L-14135 January 30, 1960 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-14047 January 30, 1960 - PRIMO PANTI v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CATANDUANES

    106 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-14109 January 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LUMBER & HARDWARE CO. v. PEDRO J. VELASCO

    106 Phil 1099

  • G.R. No. L-14310 January 30, 1960 - MAURO PRIETO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    106 Phil 1103

  • G.R. No. L-14327 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO BORJA

    106 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-14373 January 30, 1960 - GENERAL INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. NG HUA

    106 Phil 1117

  • G.R. No. L-14375 January 30, 1960 - ANDRES CASTILLO v. FROILAN BAYONA

    106 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-14535 January 30, 1960 - BENITO SYMACO v. PATERIO AQUINO

    106 Phil 1130

  • G.R. No. L-14674 January 30, 1960 - MELECIO R. DOMINGO v. JUDGE S. C. MOSCOSO

    106 Phil 1138

  • G.R. No. L-16286 January 30, 1960 - CESAR SAMSON v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

    106 Phil 1140