Title
Saturnino vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Co.
Case
G.R. No. L-16163
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1963
Insured concealed cancer surgery in application; insurer voided policy due to material misrepresentation, upheld by court. Premium refunded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-16163)

Relevant Dates and Applicable Law

The insurance application was submitted and the policy issued on November 16, 1957. Estefania A. Saturnino died on September 19, 1958. The decision was rendered on February 28, 1963, thus under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, prior to the 1987 Constitution. The applicable laws include Act No. 2427 (Insurance Law), specifically Sections 25, 26, and 30 relating to concealment, misrepresentation, and materiality in insurance contracts.

Nature of the Insurance Policy

The policy at issue was a 20-year endowment non-medical insurance policy, which waived the medical examination customarily required for ordinary life insurance policies. However, applicants had to provide detailed written information on their health and medical history. Estefania signed the application, which declared no history of cancer, tumors, recent medical consultations, surgeries, or diseases peculiar to her sex.

Facts of Medical History and Non-Disclosure

Unbeknownst to the insurer, Estefania had undergone a significant operation on September 9, 1957, for cancer involving removal of the right breast, pectoral muscles, and lymph nodes. She was hospitalized for eight days, but did not disclose this in her insurance application. At the time of death, she succumbed to pneumonia secondary to influenza less than a year after issuance of the policy.

Legal Issue: Materiality and Fraudulent Representation

The crux of the dispute was whether Estefania’s false statements amounted to a material misrepresentation sufficient to void the policy. The Court emphasized that materiality is evaluated based on the probable and reasonable influence of the information on the insurer’s decision to accept the risk or proceed with the contract, not on the actual occurrence of events.

The appellants contended that the non-medical character of the insurance policy rendered the representations immaterial. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the waiver of a medical examination made truthful disclosures even more critical, as the insurer relied heavily on the applicant’s declared health information as the basis for accepting the risk.

Evidence and Credibility Findings

Appellants argued that the insurer’s agent, Edward A. Santos, had been informed of the prior illness and operation and that he filled out the application after Estefania signed it blank. This allegation was denied by Santos, and the trial court, serving as the fact-finder, accepted his testimony as true. This finding was binding on the appellate court, which reviewed only questions of law.

Waiver of Medical Examination and Negligence Argument

The insurance application contained a clause agreeing that the insured would submit to medical examination if deemed necessary by the insurer. Appellants claimed the insurer’s failure to require a medical exam was negligent and barred the insurer from disclaiming liability. The Court rejected this claim, noting that the insurer was not negligent in relying on the insured’s representations, which appeared truthful and warranted no further inquiry at the time.

Fraudulent Concealment and Knowledge of the Insured

Appellants also argued that Estefania herself was unaware that her tumor was cancerous, as her doctor allegedly failed to inform her of the diagnosis. The Court held that concealment of the operation itself was inherently fraudulent, regardless of the insured’s knowledge or intent, as failure to disclose a material fact—even without actual fraud—entitles the insurer to rescind the contract.

This principle aligns with established jurisprudence that concealment constitutes negligence in failing to disclose information that one knows or ought to disclose, overriding the need for


...continue reading

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