Title
Sunlife Assurance Co. of Canada vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 105135
Decision Date
Jun 22, 1995
Insurer rescinds life insurance policy due to insured's material concealment of prior hospitalization, upheld by Supreme Court as valid within contestability period.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 105135)

Facts of the Insurance Contract

On April 15, 1986, Robert John B. Bacani applied for and obtained a life insurance policy (No. 3-903-766-X) from Sunlife Assurance, with a face value of ₱100,000 and an accidental‐death double indemnity feature. He designated his mother, Bernarda Bacani, as beneficiary. His application included questions about prior physician consultations, diagnostic tests, hospital admissions, and specific disorders, to which he answered only a February 1986 consultation for cough and flu in the affirmative, denying all other inquiries.

Undisclosed Medical History and Death

Two weeks before application, Bacani was hospitalized at the Lung Center of the Philippines for renal failure, undergoing urinalysis, ultrasonography, and hematology tests. On June 26, 1987, he perished in an aircraft accident. His mother filed a claim with Sunlife, which refused payment on grounds of material misrepresentation and non‐disclosure, returning premiums amounting to ₱10,172.

Procedural History

In November 1988, Bernarda and Rolando Bacani sued Sunlife for specific performance in the RTC, attaching Lung Center medical records. In January 1990 they stipulated they had no evidence to dispute concealment/misrepresentation. Sunlife’s requests for admission went unchallenged, and it moved for summary judgment. Contrary to that motion, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the Bacanis, awarding policy proceeds, accidental death benefits, attorney’s fees, and costs, dismissing Sunlife’s counterclaim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding (a) the concealed facts bore no causal relation to the death and (b) the policy was “non‐medical,” rendering health history immaterial. This Supreme Court petition followed denial of reconsideration.

Issue: Concealment and Materiality under the Insurance Code

The principal issue is whether the insured’s failure to disclose his hospitalization and renal‐failure diagnosis constituted actionable concealment that justified rescission of the policy, regardless of the eventual cause of death.

Legal Analysis and Ruling

  1. Insurance Code Section 26 mandates full disclosure in good faith of all facts material to the contract, and Section 31 defines materiality by the reasonable influence on the insurer’s risk assessment. Concealment is a neglect to communicate a known material fact.
  2. “Good faith” on the insured’s part does not excuse non-disclosure of material facts (Vda. de Canilang v. CA, 223 SCRA 443). The concealed renal‐failure hospitalization would have prompted either a higher premium, additional underwriting inquiries, or outright rejection.
  3. Waiver of a medical examination in a “non‐med

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.