Title
Dela Fuente vs. Fortune Life Insurance Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 224863
Decision Date
Dec 2, 2020
Susan, a creditor and beneficiary, sued Fortune Life after it denied her P15M claim, alleging suicide. SC ruled in her favor, awarding P14M, as Fortune failed to prove suicide.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224863)

Policy Provisions and Death Claim

Policy No. 61761 excluded suicide within two years, refunding only paid premiums less indebtedness. Upon Reuben’s death on Apr 15 from a gunshot wound, Susan presented the policy and death certificate, claiming the full face value.

Insurer’s Investigation and Claim Denial

Fortune investigated, relying on a Clinical Abstract by Dr. Pagayatan recording Randolph’s statement that Reuben had expressed a desire to die moments before the shooting. Fortune denied the P15 M claim as an excepted suicide risk and refunded P80,643 (premiums less service charge), which Susan refused. Susan then sued for money and damages.

Trial Court’s Findings and Judgment

The RTC ruled in Susan’s favor, finding no insurable-interest defect and holding Fortune failed to prove suicide by preponderance. The court disallowed Randolph’s statement as res gestae, discounted Dr. Fortun’s testimony on gunpowder residue, and credited Dr. Nulud’s autopsy findings indicating an accident. The RTC awarded P15 million plus 12% interest from May 18 2011, P50,000 attorney’s fees, and costs.

Court of Appeals’ Reversal

The CA set aside the RTC decision, dismissing the complaint. It deemed Randolph’s statement to Dr. Pagayatan spontaneous and admissible, accepted Dr. Fortun’s opinion that bullet trajectory and absence of residue supported suicide, and concluded the death was self-inflicted, an excluded risk.

Issues on Laches and Burden of Proof

The SC addressed: (1) whether Fortune waived its objection to Susan’s late motion for reconsideration (one day beyond 15-day period), and (2) whether Fortune bore the burden to prove that Reuben’s death resulted from suicide.

Admissibility of Res Gestae Statements

The Court held Randolph’s statement to Dr. Pagayatan inadmissible hearsay, not within the limited res gestae exception. Dr. Pagayatan lacked personal knowledge, and the statement occurred after sufficient time for reflection.

Credibility of Expert Testimony

The SC found Dr. Fortun’s testimony insufficient to establish suicide: she did not perform an autopsy or scene examination, relied solely on documents (including Dr. Nulud’s report), and admitted her expertise did not cover forensic chemistry. Conversely, Dr. Nulud’s hands-on autopsy, extensive medico-legal experience, and negative paraffin test supported an accidental shooting.

Accident versus Suicide Determination

Weight was given to Dr. Nulud’s findings (bullet trajectory, no muzzle imprint, negative paraffin) and police investigator Caramat’s conclusion of accidental discharge. Dr. Fortun’s concession that a front-to-back wound could occur accidentally further weakened the suicide theory.

Insurable Interest and Liability Extent

Susan’s insurable interest as creditor was valid under Section 10(c) of the Insurance Code. The policy assignment letter covered indebtedness “up to the extent” of Susan’s claim, without limiting to pre-policy investments. At death, Reuben owed Susan P16 million, but Susan had already received P2 million from Rossana, leaving P14 million outstanding.

Computation of Recoverable Amount

Consistent with anti-wagering





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.