Title
Supreme Court
Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. vs. Aban
Case
G.R. No. 175666
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2013
Insurer denied claim after two-year incontestability period; SC upheld beneficiary's right, citing insurer's failure to timely investigate fraud allegations.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 175666)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Policy inception and designation
    • On July 3, 1993, Delia Sotero applied for and was issued Life Insurance Policy No. 747411 (face value ₱100,000) by Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation, naming her niece Cresencia P. Aban as beneficiary.
    • The policy became effective on August 30, 1993, following the requisite medical examination and payment of premiums.
  • Claim and insurer’s investigation
    • Sotero died on April 10, 1996. Aban filed a claim for the proceeds on July 9, 1996.
    • Bankers Life conducted an investigation and found that Sotero was illiterate, sickly since 1990, lacked financial means, did not sign the application, and that Aban had posed as Sotero and paid the premiums.
  • Denial and rescission suit
    • On April 16, 1997, the insurer denied Aban’s claim and refunded the premiums.
    • On April 24, 1997, Bankers Life filed Civil Case No. 97-867 for rescission and/or annulment of the policy, alleging fraud, concealment or misrepresentation under the Insurance Code and voidability under Civil Code Article 1390.
  • Procedural history
    • Aban moved to dismiss on the ground of prescription under Section 48 of the Insurance Code. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion on December 9, 1997, and denied reconsideration on October 20, 1998.
    • Bankers Life appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 62286); the CA affirmed the dismissal on September 28, 2005, and denied reconsideration on November 9, 2006.
    • Bankers Life filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining dismissal on the ground of prescription under Section 48 of the Insurance Code.
  • Whether the CA erred in upholding the application of the incontestability provision in Section 48.
  • Whether the CA erred in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.