Case Digest (G.R. No. 112329)
Facts:
Virginia A. Perez v. Court of Appeals and BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 112329, January 28, 2000, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Virginia A. Perez sued to recover benefits under an additional P50,000 insurance policy allegedly issued to her husband, Primitivo B. Perez, by private respondent BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation. Primitivo had been insured with BF Lifeman for P20,000 since 1980. In October 1987 an insurance agent, Rodolfo Lalog, solicited an additional P50,000 coverage under a promotional discount; on October 20 Primitivo executed an application and, that same day, Virginia paid Lalog P2,075 (the receipt describing the amount as a “deposit”).
The agent thereafter misplaced the first application; a replacement was filled out on October 28 and Primitivo underwent and passed the required medical examination on November 1. Lalog forwarded the papers to BF Lifeman’s Gumaca branch, which was to transmit them to Manila. Primitivo died in an accident on November 25, 1987 while his application papers were still at the Gumaca office. Lalog retrieved and personally delivered the papers to BF Lifeman’s Manila office on November 27. Unaware of the death, BF Lifeman approved the application and issued Policy No. 056300 on December 2, 1987.
Virginia claimed under the policies; she received P40,000 under the original P20,000 policy (double indemnity) but BF Lifeman refused the claim under the additional P50,000 policy, refunded the P2,075 deposit, and maintained the additional coverage had not been perfected at the time of Primitivo’s death. On September 21, 1990 BF Lifeman sued Virginia for rescission and declaration of nullity of the P50,000 contract. Virginia counterclaimed for P150,000 actual damages (and other damages). On October 25, 1991 the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch XVI, ruled for Virginia and ordered payment of P150,000 (face value plus double indemnity). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the P50,000 policy had no force and effect because the contract was not perfected before the insured’s death, citing the application clau...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was there a consummated, valid insurance contract between Primitivo B. Perez and BF Lifeman Insurance Corporation for the additional P50,000 at the time of Primitivo’s death?
- Is the application clause requiring that the policy be “delivered to and accepted … in person while … in good health” a void potestative condition?
- Can BF Lifeman be held liable for gross negligence for the delay...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)