Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 177 views

    GR L-22738 Ong Vs The Century Insurance Co

    Uploaded by

    queshem
    1) The plaintiff's building and goods/merchandise were insured by the defendant insurance company for P30,000 and P15,000 respectively and were destroyed by fire. 2) The defendant invoked a clause in the policy allowing it to rebuild the destroyed property instead of paying the insured amount. 3) The court ruled that the defendant could not rebuild without the plaintiff's consent, as alternative obligations require notice and consent. Since the defendant did not provide notice or obtain consent, the plaintiff was entitled to the insured amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    GR L-22738 Ong Vs The Century Insurance Co

    Uploaded by

    queshem
    177 views1 page
    1) The plaintiff's building and goods/merchandise were insured by the defendant insurance company for P30,000 and P15,000 respectively and were destroyed by fire. 2) The defendant invoked a clause in the policy allowing it to rebuild the destroyed property instead of paying the insured amount. 3) The court ruled that the defendant could not rebuild without the plaintiff's consent, as alternative obligations require notice and consent. Since the defendant did not provide notice or obtain consent, the plaintiff was entitled to the insured amount.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    GR L-22738 Ong vs The Century Insurance Co

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The plaintiff's building and goods/merchandise were insured by the defendant insurance company for P30,000 and P15,000 respectively and were destroyed by fire. 2) The defendant invoked a clause in the policy allowing it to rebuild the destroyed property instead of paying the insured amount. 3) The court ruled that the defendant could not rebuild without the plaintiff's consent, as alternative obligations require notice and consent. Since the defendant did not provide notice or obtain consent, the plaintiff was entitled to the insured amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    177 views1 page

    GR L-22738 Ong Vs The Century Insurance Co

    Uploaded by

    queshem
    1) The plaintiff's building and goods/merchandise were insured by the defendant insurance company for P30,000 and P15,000 respectively and were destroyed by fire. 2) The defendant invoked a clause in the policy allowing it to rebuild the destroyed property instead of paying the insured amount. 3) The court ruled that the defendant could not rebuild without the plaintiff's consent, as alternative obligations require notice and consent. Since the defendant did not provide notice or obtain consent, the plaintiff was entitled to the insured amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Ong vs The Century Insurance Co., Ltd GR No.

    L-22738

    FACTS:

    This is an appeal by the insurer-defendant from the judgment sentencing it to pay insured-
    plaintiff the sum of P45,000, the value of certain policies of fire insurance, with legal interest
    thereon.

    The building, the goods and merchandise therein of the plaintiff was insured against fire for
    P30,000 and P15,000 respectively when it was burnt on February 28, 1923.

    Defendant invoked clause 14 of the conditions of the policies to justify rebuilding the house
    burnt as sufficient indemnity to the insured for actual loss suffered by him:

    The Company may at its option reinstate or replace the property damaged or destroyed,
    or any part thereof, instead of paying the amount of the loss of damages, or may join
    with any other Company or insurers in so doing, but the Company shall not be bound to
    reinstate exactly or completely, but only as circumstances permit and in reasonable
    sufficient manner, and in no case shall the Company be bound to expend more in
    reinstatement that it would have cost to reinstate such property as it was at the time of
    the occurrence of such loss or damage, nor more than the sum insured by the Company
    thereon.

    ISSUE: W/N the defendant can rebuild the house burnt as sufficient indemnity to the insured for
    the actual loss suffered by him.

    RULING: NO. In alternative obligations, the debtor, the insurance company in this case, must
    notify the creditor of his election, stating which of the two prestations he is disposed to fulfill in
    order to give the creditor the opportunity to express his consent, or to impugn the election made
    by the debtor, and only after said notice shall the election take legal effect when consented by
    the creditor, or if impugned by the latter, when declared proper by a competent court.

    In the instance case, the appellant company did not give a formal notice of its election to rebuild,
    and neither did the plaintiff give his assent. "It would be an imposition unequitable, as well as
    unjust, to compel the plaintiff to accept the rebuilding of a smaller house than the one burnt, with
    a lower kind of materials than those of said house, without offering him an additional indemnity
    for the difference in size between the two house, which circumstances were taken into account
    when the insurance applied for by the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant." Also, Without
    tendering either the insured value of the merchandise at 15,000. Hence the judgment appealed
    from is affirmed.

    You might also like