1.
CIA DE SEGUROS VS CHRISTERN
FACTS:
Christern, Huenfeld & Co. a corporation controlled by German
subjects obtained a fire insurance policy in the Philippines on
October 1. 1941 covering merchandise contained in a building located
at No. 711 Roman Street, Binondo Manila.
On December 10, 1941, war broke out between United States
and Germany. Thereafter, the goods insured were burned.
Thereafter the insured filed a claim to the insurer but the they denied
it on the ground that refused to pay the claim on the ground that the
policy in favor of the respondent had ceased to be in force on the
date the United States declared war against Germany, the
respondent Corporation (though organized under and by virtue of the
laws of the Philippines) being controlled by the German subjects and
the petitioner being a company under American jurisdiction when said
policy was issued on October 1, 1941.
ISSUE:
CAN THE INSURER BE MADE LIABLE?
RULING:
No. the insurer was not liable. The insured became an enemy
corporation because of the outbreak of the way between the United
States and Germany and the policy ceased to be allowable as soon as
the insured became public enemy. However, the premium paid for
the period after the insured became a public enemy should be
returned.
The Philippine Insurance Law (Act No. 2427, as amended,) in section
8, provides that "anyone except a public enemy may be insured." It
stands to reason that an insurance policy ceases to be allowable as
soon as an insured becomes a public enemy.
2. PHIL-AM LIFE INS. CO VS PINEDA
FACTS:
On January 15, 1968, Dimayuga procured an ordinary life insurance
policy from Phil-am Life and designated his wife and children as
irrevocable beneficiaries. The wife died while the children were still
minors. Dimayuga filed a petition in court to change his beneficiaries.
The minors gave their consent to the change of beneficiaries.
Dimayuga claimed that the court upon any just and reasonable
ground may change an irrevocable beneficiaries.
ISSUE:
SHOULD THE COURT GRANT THE PETITION TO CHANGE THE
IRREVOCABLE BENFICIARIES. – NO.
RULING:
The petition should be denied. It is only with the consent of all the
beneficiaries that any change or amendment to the policy concerning
the irrevocable beneficiaries may be legally and validly effected. There
is no other exception thus; abrogating the contention of Dimayuga
that said designation can be amended if the courts find a just,
reasonable ground to do so. The consent given by the minors was not
effective since they cannot validly give their consent to the change of
beneficiaries.
When the designation is IRREVOCABLE, it cannot be changed. They
can only be change when the consent of the beneficiary and since
they are minors they cannot give their consent. There is no other
exception in this case. The consent given by minors are not effective
because they cannot validly give consent.
 RULING:

The Platinum 2-in-1 Savings and Insurance Account was BPI’s

commercial product, offering the insurance coverage for free for
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND FGU INSURANCE
every deposit account opened. Rheozel directly communicated with
CORP. VS LAINGAO
BPI, the agent of FGU. BPI, as agent of FGU had the primary
FACTS: responsibility to ensure that the 2-in-1 account be reasonably carried
out with the full disclosure to the parties concerned, particularly, the
Rheozel opened a “Platinum 1-in-1 Savings and Insurance” Account
beneficiaries. Thus, it was incumbent upon BPI to give proper notice
with BPI. Such account is one wherein depositors are automatically
of the existence of the insurance coverage and the stipulation in the
covered by an insurance policy against disability or death issued by
insurance contract for filing a claim to Laingo, as Rhoezel’s
FGU.
beneficiary, upon the latter’s death. Since BPI is the agent of FGU,
On September 25, 2000, Rheozel died due to a vehicular accident. On then notice of death of Rhoezel to BPI is considered as notice to FGU.
September 27, 2000, Laingao, the beneficiary of the insurance policy Both BPI and FGU shall bear the loss and must compensate Laingo for
instructed the family’s secretary to go BPI to inquire about the actual damages and FGU must pay the proceeds of the policy.
savings account of Rheozel. Laingao wanted to use the money in the
savings account for Rheozel’s burial and funeral expenses. BPI
allowed withdrawal from the account of Rheozel. More than two years
later or on January 21, 2003, Rheozel’s sister while arranging
Rheozel’s personal things in his room found the Personal Accident
Insurance Policy issued by FGU.

Upon being informed of the existence of the insurance, Laingo sent

two letters of demand to FGU which denied the claim on the ground
the policy provides that the claim should have been filed within three
calendar months from the death of Rheozel.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT LAINGO, AS NAMED BENEFICIARY WHO

HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE
INSURANCE CONTRACT, IS BOUND BY THE THREE CALENDAR
MONTH DEADLINE FOR FILING A WRITTEN NOTICE OF
CLAIM UPON THE DEATH OF THE INSURED.