Case Digest (G.R. No. 181132)
Facts:
Heirs of Loreto C. Maramag, represented by surviving spouse Vicenta Pangilinan Maramag (petitioners) v. Eva Verna de Guzman Maramag, Odessa de Guzman Maramag, Karl Brian de Guzman Maramag, Trisha Angelie Maramag, The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd., and Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (respondents), G.R. No. 181132, June 05, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, seeking revocation and/or reduction of insurance proceeds as void and/or inofficious, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. They alleged that petitioners were the legitimate wife and legitimate children of the deceased Loreto C. Maramag; that respondent Eva was Loreto’s concubine and a suspect in his killing and therefore disqualified from receiving insurance proceeds; and that Eva’s illegitimate children (Odessa, Karl Brian, Trisha Angelie) were entitled only to reduced legitimes compared with the legitimate children, so that any proceeds paid to them should be reduced and petitioners’ legitimes preserved.
In answer, Insular Life admitted that Loreto had misrepresented Eva and the children as legitimate beneficiaries, and stated that it disqualified Eva as beneficiary in one policy and revoked her designation in another; it released Odessa’s share but withheld the shares of the two minors pending guardianship. Grepalife answered that Eva was never designated a beneficiary under its policies, that Loreto’s insurance was void for material misrepresentation (thus denying claims), that the suit was premature, and that succession law does not govern clear beneficiary designations in insurance policies.
Service by publication was resorted to because the whereabouts of Eva and the illegitimate children were unknown; the illegitimate children were later declared in default. At pretrial, Insular and Grepalife moved to resolve issues raised in their answers first; the RTC ordered petitioners to comment. Petitioners insisted the questions were legal and that donation and succession rules (Civil Code Arts. 752, 772) applied.
On September 21, 2004 the RTC issued a resolution granting the insurers’ motion to dismiss as to Odessa, Karl Brian and Trisha but ordered the case to proceed against Eva, Insular and Grepalife. The RTC’s reasoning invoked Article 2011 of the Civil Code (insurance governed by special laws) and Section 53 of the Insurance Code, held that beneficiaries generally possess a vested right to insurance proceeds, and opined that designation of a concubine as beneficiary is void under the prohibition on donations to concubines, so indemnity payable to a concubine should go to the legal heirs.
Insular and Grepalife filed motions for reconsideration. On June 16, 2005 the RTC granted reconsideration and set aside its September 21, 2004 order, dismissing the complaint as to Eva, Insular and Grepalife. The RTC concluded that the distribution of insurance proceeds is governed primarily by the Insurance Code; where beneficiaries remain validly designated (including illegitimate children), proceeds belong to them under Section 53, and questions about misrepresentation affecting insurability were premature insofar as Grepalife had not yet denied claims. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 85948, dismissed petitioners’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that dismissal for failure to state a cause of action raises a pure question of law and petitioners had not timely moved for reconsideration of the RTC’s September 21, 2004 resolution; that earlier resolution had become final. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, may the trial court consider matters not alleged in the complaint?
- In granting a motion for reconsideration of an order denying a motion to dismiss, did the RTC impermissibly examine and determine the truth and probative value of factual allegations raised in defendants’ answers?
- Are the members of the legitimate family entitled to receive insurance proceeds that were designated for the concubine (or her share), or do such proceeds belong to t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)