Case # 3
and a minor child, respectively demanded
Saturnino vs. Philippine American Life
Insurance Company; (1963)
What is 20-years endowment non-
medical insurance?
The policy sued upon is one 20 years
endowment non-medical insurance.
This kind of policy dispenses with medical
examination of the applicant usually
required in ordinary life policies, however,
detailed information is called for in the
application concerning the applicant’s
health and medical history.
Facts:
The written application in this case was
submitted by Saturnino to PhilAm on
1957.
The policy was issued on the same day,
upon payment of 1st year premium of
339.25. On September 1958, Saturnino
died of pneumonia secondary to
influenza.
The appellants are who are her husband
payment for the value of the policy.
The claim was rejected and this suit was
subsequently instituted. It appears that 2
months prior to the issuance of the policy,
Saturnino was operated on for her cancer,
involving the removal of right breast.
She stayed to the hospital for a period of 8
days and was discharged, although
according to the surgeon who operated on
her she could not be considered as cured,
her illness is considered as malignant.
Estefania Saturnino, did not disclosed
thereof in her application for insurance.
On contrary, she stated therein that she did
have nor had she had among other ailments
listed in the application, cancer, tumors;
that she had not consulted a physician,
undergone any operation or suffered any
injury within the preceding 5 years.
The application also recites that the
foregoing declarations constituted a further
basis of the issuance of policy.
Issue:
Whether or not, the failure of Saturnino to
disclose the severity of his previous illness
is material to the avoidance of the
insurance policy?
Held:
Yes, in the application for insurance signed
by the insured in this case, she agreed to
submit to a medical examination by a duly
appointed examiner of appellee, if in the
latter’s opinion such examination was
necessary as further evidence of
insurability.
In not asking her to submit to a medical
examination, appellants maintain, appelle
was guilty of negligence, which precluded
it from finding about her actual state of
health. No such negligence can be imputed
to appelle. It was precisely because the
insured had given herself a clean bill of
health that appelle no longer considered an
actual medical checkup necessay.
In the first place, the concealment of the Case #4
fact of the operation itself was fraudulent,
as there could not have been any mistake Canilang vs. CA and Great Pacific Life
about it, no matter what the ailment,
second, in order to avoid a policy it is Facts:
necessary to show actual fraud on the part
of the insured.

In this jurisdiction, however the

concealment, whether intentional or
unintentional, entitles the insurer to rescind
the contract of insurance, concealment
being defined as, “negligence to
communicate that which a party knows to
ought to communicate.”

Supreme Court also cited the case of

Argente vs. West Coast Life;

“The basis of rule vitiating the contract in

cases of concealment is that it misleads or
deceives the insurer into accepting the risk
or accepting it at the rate of premium
agreed upon. The Insurer relying upon the
belief that the assured will disclose every
material fact within his actual or presumed
knowledge, is misled into a belief that the
circumstances withheld does not exist, and
he is thereby induced to estimate the risk
upon a false basis it does not exist.”