Title
Henson, Jr. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 223134
Decision Date
Aug 14, 2019
A water leak damaged insured equipment; UCPB, as subrogee, sued building owner for negligence. Court ruled claim not prescribed, citing 10-year prescriptive period under subrogation law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 113054)

Petitioner

Vicente G. Henson, Jr., former owner of the building where the leak occurred and stockholder-President of Citrinne Holdings, Inc., which briefly held title before petitioner’s inclusion in the suit.

Respondent

UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., insurer of Copylandia’s equipment, which paid P1,326,342.76 to Copylandia under its policy and was subrogated by law to Copylandia’s right to sue the wrongdoer for that amount.

Key Dates

• 1989–1999: NASCL leases front portion of building from petitioner.
• 1999: NASCL modifies lease and building piping.
• May 9, 2006: Water leak damages Copylandia’s equipment (P2,062,640.00).
• Nov 2, 2006: Respondent indemnifies Copylandia (P1,326,342.76) and is subrogated under Civil Code Art. 2207.
• May 20, 2010: Respondent makes extrajudicial demand on NASCL.
• Oct 6, 2011 & Apr 21, 2014: Respondent amends complaint to implead first Citrinne Holdings, Inc., then petitioner.
• Jun 10 & Sep 22, 2014: RTC orders dropping of CHI and joinder of petitioner.
• Nov 13, 2015 & Feb 26, 2016: CA affirms RTC orders; denies reconsideration.
• Aug 14, 2019: Supreme Court promulgates decision.

Applicable Law

• Civil Code of 1987, Arts. 1144(2) (ten-year prescription for “obligations created by law”), 1146(2) (four-year prescription for quasi-delict), and 2207 (equitable subrogation).
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 (certiorari).
• 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Facts

National Arts Studio and Color Lab (NASCL) leased petitioner’s building and altered its piping. Copylandia occupied the ground floor when a May 9, 2006 leak caused P2,062,640.00 in damage. Copylandia’s insurer, respondent, paid P1,326,342.76 on Nov 2, 2006 and became subrogated to its rights against the wrongdoer.

Procedural History

After a failed demand to NASCL, respondent sued in Makati RTC (Civil Case No. 10-885). It initially impleaded Citrinne Holdings, Inc. as owner, then substituted petitioner. CHI moved to dismiss on prescription grounds. The RTC and CA held the insurer’s cause of action was “created by law” under Art. 2207 and thus subject to a ten-year prescriptive period.

Issue for Resolution

Has respondent’s subrogated claim prescribed—i.e., is it barred by the four-year limit for quasi-delicts or preserved by a ten-year period for obligations created by law?

Court’s Ruling

The petition is DENIED. The CA decision and resolution are AFFIRMED, but Vector’s ten-year reckoning rule is prospectively modified.

Court’s Reasoning

  1. Under Vector Shipping Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., subrogation under Civil Code Art. 2207 gives rise to an obligation created by law, triggering a ten-year prescription per Art. 1144(2).
  2. Although subrogation steps the insurer into the insured’s rights, the right itself arises by operation of law upon payment o

...continue reading

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