Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3032)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3032)
Facts:
Victoria Hidalgo Vda. de Carrero, et al. v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-3032, October 10, 1950, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tuason, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiffs-appellants were the beneficiaries/heirs of Juan Carrero y Borras; the defendant-appellee was The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., a Canadian life-insurance corporation with a Manila branch.The parties submitted a stipulation of facts in the lower court. On February 7, 1934 the insurer issued policy No. 632496 on Juan Carrero’s life, signed at Toronto; semi-annual premiums were paid up to the installment due September 10, 1941. On June 23, 1941 the insured obtained a cash loan of $6,000 on the policy, $5,500 of which was against the policy’s cash reserve. During the Japanese occupation of Manila (from January 2, 1942), the insurer’s Manila branch was closed, its records were submitted to the Finance Section of the Japanese Military Administration, and its Manila agents and authorized cashiers were rendered unable to perform their functions. Premiums becoming due in 1942–1944 were not paid; the stipulation averred that payment was legally and physically impossible in the Philippines and that the insured was willing and able to pay.
Juan Carrero died in Manila on February 17, 1945. The trial-level judgment (the judgment appealed from) held that the policy lapsed by reason of non-payment of the premiums due. Counsel for appellants indicated that this appeal raised the same question as in Paz Lopez Constantion v. Asia Life Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-1670 (Aug. 30, 1950), which had been treated as a test case. The appeal reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal; the Court considered whether non-payment of premiums due to war excused forfeiture and which doctrinal rule (the Statham/United States rule versus the Connecticut/New York rules) should govern the effect of wartime non-payment.
Issues:
- Did the non-payment of premiums during the Japanese occupation excuse performance and prevent forfeiture, or did the policy lapse for non-payment?
- Which doctrinal rule governs life-insurance non-payment occasioned by war — the United States (Statham) rule or the Connecticut/New York rule — and is the Statham rule applicable here?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)