Title
Vda. de Canilang vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 92492
Decision Date
Jun 17, 1993
Jaime Canilang failed to disclose prior medical consultations for "sinus tachycardia" and "acute bronchitis" in his life insurance application. His death led to a denied claim due to material concealment, upheld by courts, as the insurer relied on his disclosures to assess risk.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109404)

Insurance Application and Pre-Existing Conditions

On August 4, 1982, Jaime Canilang applied for a non-medical life insurance policy (Policy No. 345163, face amount ₱19,700) with Great Pacific, declaring under oath that within the past five years he had neither been hospitalized nor consulted a physician for any heart, lung, kidney or similar conditions. He left the “Exceptions” section blank, notwithstanding two consultations with Dr. Claudio (June 18, 1982: diagnosed with sinus tachycardia; August 3, 1982: diagnosed with acute bronchitis) and prescribed Trazepam and Aptin.

Death and Claim Denial

Jaime Canilang died on August 5, 1983, of congestive heart failure and chronic anemia. His widow filed for benefits, which Great Pacific denied on December 5, 1983, on the ground of fraudulent concealment of material health information.

Insurance Commission Proceedings

Before the Insurance Commission, petitioner testified she was unaware of any serious illness and believed her husband died of a kidney disorder. Petitioner offered Dr. Claudio’s deposition confirming the two consultations; Great Pacific presented its medical underwriter, Dr. Quismorio, who explained that Great Pacific waived medical exams only where the applicant denied prior consultations.

Insurance Commissioner’s Decision

On November 5, 1985, Commissioner Ansaldo ordered payment of ₱19,700 plus interest and ₱2,000 attorneys’ fees, holding that:

  1. Canilang’s ailments were minor and immaterial to policy issuance;
  2. Great Pacific waived inquiry by issuing the policy despite unanswered medical questions;
  3. There was no intentional concealment—Canilang believed his condition was a simple cold;
  4. Batas Pambansa Blg. 874 (effective June 1, 1985) did not apply, as it post-dated the policy.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that:

  • The pretrial issue was whether Canilang made a material concealment, not whether it was intentional;
  • His failure to disclose prior treatment was a material omission necessitating rescission;
  • The rule in Ng Gan Zee (misrepresentation) did not govern concealment cases.

Issue on Supreme Court Review

Whether (1) the issue before the Insurance Commission required proof of intentional concealment, and (2) non-disclosure of Canilang’s prior medical consultations amounted to fraud or was waived by Great Pacific.

Applicable Law (1987 Constitution; Insurance Code of 1978)

  • Sec. 26 (concealment defined)
  • Sec. 27 (any concealment entitles injured party to rescind)
  • Sec. 28 (duty of utmost good faith; material facts must be communicated)
  • Sec. 31 (materiality measured by probable and reasonable influence on insurer)

Materiality of Withheld Information

“Sinus tachycardia” (heart rate over 100 bpm) and “acute bronchitis” are objectively material: they affect risk assessment, underwriting decisions on coverage, premium rates, or medical examinations. Great Pacific plausibly would have imposed higher premiums or declined coverage had it known of these conditions.

Intentional vs. Unintentional Concealment

Section 27’s omission of “intentional or unintentional” is grammatical surplus; concealment in any form author

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.