Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Tibay vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 119655
Decision Date
May 24, 1996
Fire insurance claim denied due to unpaid premium; policy invalid under Insurance Code. Supreme Court upheld insurer's non-liability, emphasizing full payment as essential for validity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119655)

Factual Background

Fortune issued Fire Insurance Policy No. 136171 covering the Tibays’ Makati residence for ₱600,000 (January 23, 1987–January 23, 1988). Violeta paid only ₱600 of the ₱2,983.50 premium on January 23, 1987. After complete destruction by fire on March 8, she paid the balance on March 10 and filed her claim the same day. The insurer’s adjuster requested documentation, which petitioners promptly furnished, but Fortune ultimately denied liability.

Procedural History

The trial court (July 19, 1990) held Fortune liable for ₱600,000 plus 6% interest and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (March 24, 1995) reversed, ordering only return of the full premium with 12% interest from March 10, 1987. Petitioners sought Supreme Court review.

Legal Provisions on Premium Payment

Under Section 77, no insurance contract is valid or binding “unless and until the premium thereof has been paid,” except life policies under grace period rules. Premium is the insurer’s consideration; its prompt and full payment maintains the policy in force.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation

The Court affirmed that full payment is a condition precedent. The explicit policy clause and Section 77 mandate that partial payment—even if accepted—does not bind the insurer. No “vinculum juris” arises until the entire premium is fully paid and receipted before the peril’s occurrence.

Analysis of Policy Provisions

Policy Condition No. 2 stipulates the contract “is not in force until the premium has been fully paid and duly receipted.” The “full payment” requirement cannot be waived by implication where the contract expressly so provides and was approved by the Insurance Commissioner.

Rejection of Countervailing Precedents

Prior decisions permitting partial-payment efficacy (Philippine Phoenix v. Woodworks; Makati Tuscany Condominium v. CA) involved either implied waiver by suing for the unpaid premium or express agreement to pay in installments. Here, no such waiver or installment arrangement exists;

...continue reading

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