Title
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Co.
Case
G.R. No. 166245
Decision Date
Apr 9, 2008
Eternal Gardens sought insurance claim for John Chuang's death; Philamlife denied, citing unsubmitted application. Supreme Court ruled Philamlife's inaction and premium acceptance constituted approval, ordering payment of PhP 100,000 plus interest and fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166245)

Petitioner

Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation, obliged under the group policy to submit lists of lot purchasers with their applications and outstanding balances.

Respondent

Philamlife, which agreed to provide coverage for lot purchasers upon submission and approval of their applications, subject to policy terms.

Key Dates

  • December 10, 1980: Inception of Creditor Group Life Policy No. P-1920.
  • December 29, 1982: Eternal submitted a transmittal letter (stamped received January 15, 1983) listing “new business,” including Chuang, and indicating enclosed application forms.
  • August 2, 1984: Death of John Uy Chuang.
  • August 20, 1984: Eternal’s initial claim submission.
  • November 15, 1984: Philamlife’s receipt of additional claim requirements.
  • May 20, 1986: Philamlife’s formal denial of Chuang’s claim.
  • May 29, 1996: Makati RTC decision in favor of Eternal.
  • November 26, 2004: Court of Appeals reversal.
  • April 9, 2008: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (contracts and property rights protected under due process).
  • Insurance Code, particularly Section 26, Rule 130 (formal requirements for applications).
  • Rule 45, Rules of Court (certiorari jurisdiction).
  • Established jurisprudence on adhesion contracts and liberal construction in favor of the insured.

Facts

  1. Under the policy, coverage for each lot purchaser is equal to the unpaid balance of the lot loan (up to ₱100,000), effective upon contracting the loan if the insurer approves the application.
  2. Eternal forwarded on December 29, 1982 a list of new lot purchasers, stating that Philamlife application forms and certificates were enclosed; the letter was stamped “received” by Philamlife.
  3. Chuang died August 2, 1984. Eternal submitted a complete claim dossier, but Philamlife demanded proof of an application executed by the insured. Eternal provided same on November 15, 1984.
  4. Philamlife denied the claim, arguing no prior approval of Chuang’s application and relying on policy terms requiring formal acceptance.

Issue

Whether Philamlife’s prolonged inaction on Chuang’s submitted application and acceptance of premiums constituted approval of the application, thereby triggering the insurer’s obligation to pay the policy proceeds.

Trial and Intermediate Rulings

  • RTC: Found that the stamped receipt admitted the transmittal of Chuang’s application, Philamlife’s inaction and premium acceptance amounted to deemed approval, and rendered judgment for Eternal (₱100,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees).
  • CA: Concluded the application was not duly submitted pre-death; ruled that absence of a valid application precluded coverage; reversed the RTC decision.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  1. Factual Review: Under recognized exceptions to the conclusive-facts rule, the Court re-examined the CA’s factual findings. The RTC’s credibility assessments and the stamp of receipt were binding unless contradicted by undisputed record evidence. Philamlife failed to rebut the inference that Chuang’s application was enclosed in the December 29, 1982 letter.
  2. Burden of Proof: The acknowledgment of receipt operates as an admission; once Eternal established that the application was enclosed, the burden shifted to Philamlife to prove non-receipt, which it did not do.
  3. Credibility: Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding copy numbers did not undermine the essential agreement on material facts.
  4. Contract Interpretation: Recognizing the group policy as a contract of adhesion, the Court applied the 1987 Constitution’s protection of property and due process rights, and established doctr
...continue reading

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