Del Val vs.

Del Val
G.R. No. L-9374
February 16, 1915

Facts

Gregorio Nacianceno del Val had a life insurance of P40,000 naming

as sole beneficiary his brother Andres Del Val who used the insurance money to
repurchase his estate for P18,365.20 and keeping the balance of the insurance
of P21,634.80 he also did the same to the personal properties in his possession

Francisco Del Val, Et Al., brothers and sisters, contended that the
insurance claim as well as the personal properties should be given to the estate
and not to Andres. On the other hand, Andres contented that it was his fathers
who sold the property named with his brothers and sisters without his
consent. Claims that the insurance is solely his.

Trial Court: dismissed the action stating that it is an action for partition
between co-heirs The complaint, however, fails to comply with Code Civ., Pro.
sec. 183, in that it does not 'contain an adequate description of the real property
of which partition is demanded. Since the estate was finally closed. the matter
of the personal property at least must be considered res judicata.

Issue & Ruling

Whether or not Andres as sole beneficiary should have exclusive right

to the insurance claim.

Yes. The contract of life insurance is a special contract and the destination
of the proceeds thereof is determined by special laws which deal exclusively with
the subject. Our civil code has no provisions which relate directly and
specifically to life-insurance contracts of to the destination of life-insurance
proceeds that subject is regulated exclusively by the Code of Commerce. Thus,
contention of petitioners that proceeds should be considered as a donation or
gift and should be included in the estate of the deceased is UNTENABLE.

Since the repurchase has been made n the names of all the heirs instead
of the defendant alone, petitioners claim that the property belongs to the heirs
in common and not to the defendant alone. The SC held that if it is established
by evidence that that was his intention and that the real estate was delivered to
the plaintiffs with that understanding, then it is probable that their contention
is correct and that they are entitled to share equally with the
defendant. HOWEVER, it appears from the evidence that the conveyances were
taken in the name of the plaintiffs without the knowledge and consent of Andres,
or that it was not his intention to make a gift to them of real estate, when it
belongs to him.