Title
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Ebrado
Case
G.R. No. L-44059
Decision Date
Oct 28, 1977
A legally married man’s common-law wife, designated as beneficiary in his life insurance policy, is disqualified from claiming proceeds under Article 739 of the Civil Code, rendering proceeds payable to his estate.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-44059)

Petitioner and Respondent

Appellant: Carponia T. Ebrado (defendant-appellant below) — claimed proceeds as designated beneficiary. Appellee/Plaintiff: The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. — brought interpleader action due to competing claims. Other claimant/respondent below: Pascuala Vda. de Ebrado (legal wife) — asserted entitlement as the lawful spouse.

Key Dates (selected)

Policy issued: September 1, 1968. Death of insured: October 21, 1969 (accidental). Interpleader filed by insurer: April 29, 1970. Pre-trial and stipulated facts: July 8, 1972. Trial court judgment: September 25, 1972. Appellate court certification to the Supreme Court: July 11, 1976.

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Primary instruments and provisions considered by the Court in its reasoning: the Insurance Act (RA 2327, as amended) and the Insurance Code (PD No. 612) for the narrow insurance-law context; the New Civil Code — specifically Article 739 (proscribing certain donations) and Articles 2011–2012 (mandating that matters not covered by special laws are governed by the Civil Code and providing that those forbidden to receive donations under Article 739 cannot be named beneficiaries of life insurance policies). The Court also relied on prior jurisprudence equating life insurance beneficiaries with donees and on principles allowing proof by preponderance in civil actions concerning disqualifying illicit relationships.

Material Facts

Ebrado purchased a whole-life insurance policy with an accidental death rider for identical face amounts; he designated Carponia as revocable beneficiary and referred to her as his wife. At the time of the policy and of his death, Ebrado remained legally married to Pascuala and had six legitimate children with her; concurrently, he lived with Carponia and had two children with her. Upon his accidental death, both Carponia and Pascuala asserted claims to the policy proceeds, prompting the insurer to file an interpleader action and deposit the proceeds in dispute.

Procedural Posture and Stipulation

During pre-trial the parties stipulated to the key facts summarized above and expressly agreed that resolution could be rendered on the basis of those stipulations. The trial court entered judgment declaring Carponia disqualified from receiving the proceeds and ordered the amount paid to the deceased’s estate; Carponia appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as presenting only questions of law.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether a person living in a common-law conjugal relationship with a legally married insured, who has been designated as beneficiary in the insured’s life insurance policy, may lawfully receive the policy proceeds, or whether such designation is void by force of the Civil Code provision disqualifying persons guilty of adultery or concubinage from receiving donations from the spouse or consort.

Court’s Legal Analysis — Applicability of Insurance Law vs. Civil Code

The Court recognized that neither the Insurance Act nor the Insurance Code expressly resolves the particular question; the general provision that insurance proceeds shall be applied exclusively to the proper interest of the insured does not itself determine the status of beneficiaries. Article 2011 of the Civil Code requires that matters not expressly provided for in special laws be governed by the Code; Article 2012 states that individuals forbidden from receiving donations under Article 739 cannot be named beneficiaries of life insurance policies by the person who cannot make such donations. Consequently, the Court applied the civil-law rules on donations to life insurance beneficiary designations.

Analogy Between Beneficiary and Donee; Application of Article 739

The Court treated a life insurance beneficiary as analogous to a donee because both receive a benefit founded on the insured’s liberality (premiums paid by the insured). Under Article 739(1), donations between persons guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation are void; the Court extended this disability to life insurance beneficiary designations, concluding that a person living in concubinage with a married insured falls within the proscription and therefore is disqualified from being a beneficiary.

Quantum and Mode of Proof for Disqualification

The Court emphasized that Article 739 itself contemplates civil proof: a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite. The law allows the disqualifying guilt of the donee (here, beneficiary) to be established by a preponderance of evidence in the civil proceeding regarding the nullity of the donation. Where the parties have judicially admitted the existence of the illicit relationship (as in the stipulation at pre-trial), no further criminal or independent civil finding is required; judicial admissions are conclusive and suffice to support a judgment of disqualification.

Policy and Moral Considerations

The Court e

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.