Title
Perez vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 112329
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2000
Primitivo Perez applied for additional insurance coverage; BF Lifeman issued the policy after his death. Court ruled no valid contract was perfected due to unfulfilled conditions, nullifying the policy.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 51910)

Facts:

  • Contract formation
    • Primitivo B. Perez had been insured with BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation since 1980 for ₱20,000.
    • In October 1987, agent Rodolfo Lalog solicited additional coverage of ₱50,000 under a promotional discount.
  • Application process
    • October 20, 1987: Perez signed an application for the additional ₱50,000 and paid ₱2,075 (marked “deposit”).
    • Agent lost the original form; October 28, 1987: Perez executed a second application.
  • Medical examination and transmission
    • November 1, 1987: Perez underwent and passed the required medical examination.
    • Lalog forwarded the application and supporting papers to the Gumaca branch for onward transmission to Manila.
  • Death and policy issuance
    • November 25, 1987: Perez died in a banca accident; papers still at Gumaca branch.
    • November 27, 1987: Lalog personally delivered papers to the Manila office.
    • December 2, 1987: BF Lifeman issued Policy No. 056300 for ₱50,000 without knowledge of Perez’s death.
    • Survivor (Virginia A. Perez) received ₱40,000 under the original policy; insurer refunded ₱2,075 and denied the additional claim.
  • Judicial proceedings
    • September 21, 1990: BF Lifeman sued for rescission and nullity of the ₱50,000 contract.
    • Virginia Perez counterclaimed for ₱150,000 actual damages and other reliefs.
    • October 25, 1991 (RTC): Judgment for defendant, ordering BF Lifeman to pay ₱150,000.
    • July 9, 1993 (CA): Reversed RTC, declared the ₱50,000 policy null and void.

Issues:

  • Whether the ₱50,000 insurance contract was perfected before the insured’s death.
  • Whether the condition that the policy be delivered to and accepted by the insured in good health is a void potestative condition.
  • Whether the insurer’s delay in processing the application constitutes gross negligence.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.