Title
Vda. de Canilang vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 92492
Decision Date
Jun 17, 1993
Jaime Canilang failed to disclose prior medical consultations for "sinus tachycardia" and "acute bronchitis" in his life insurance application. His death led to a denied claim due to material concealment, upheld by courts, as the insurer relied on his disclosures to assess risk.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 92492)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Policy Application
    • Jaime Canilang consulted Dr. Wilfredo B. Claudio on 18 June 1982 and was diagnosed with “sinus tachycardia,” prescribed Trazepam and Aptin.
    • On 3 August 1982, he was treated for “acute bronchitis.”
    • On 4 August 1982, he applied for a non-medical life insurance policy (Policy No. 345163, face value P19,700) with Great Pacific Life Assurance Company, naming his wife Thelma Canilang as beneficiary.
  • Death and Claim Denial
    • Jaime Canilang died on 5 August 1983 of “congestive heart failure,” “anemia,” and “chronic anemia.”
    • Thelma Canilang filed a claim; Great Pacific denied it on 5 December 1983 for concealment of material information.
  • Proceedings Before the Insurance Commissioner
    • Petitioner testified unawareness of serious illness and thought death due to a kidney disorder.
    • Dr. Claudio’s deposition confirmed prior treatment for sinus tachycardia and acute bronchitis.
    • Great Pacific’s medical underwriter, Dr. Quismorio, explained non-medical policies waive exams unless applicant indicates prior consultations.
    • Insurance Commissioner Ansaldo (5 Nov 1985) ordered payment of P19,700 plus interest and P2,000 attorney’s fees, finding:
      • Ailments were not so serious to affect underwriting.
      • Great Pacific waived inquiry by issuing policy despite incomplete answers.
      • No intentional concealment—insured believed ailments were minor.
      • B.P. Blg. 874 (effective 1 June 1985) inapplicable.
  • Court of Appeals Decision
    • On appeal, CA reversed: held the issue was material concealment, not intent.
    • Found failure to disclose prior consultations was material and justified denial.
    • Distinguished Ng Gan Zee (misrepresentation) from concealment cases.
  • Supreme Court Petition
    • Petitioner argued CA erred by ignoring agreed issue of “intentional” concealment and that non-disclosure did not amount to fraud and was waived by insurer.

Issues:

  • Nature of Concealment
    • Whether the controlling issue was intentional concealment of material health information by the insured.
  • Effect of Non-Medical Policy
    • Whether Great Pacific waived its right to inquire by issuing a non-medical policy despite incomplete medical declaration.

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.