Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    Palileo V Cosio

    Uploaded by

    kenner
    Palileo v. Cosio 17 SCRA 196 (1966) FACTS: On Dec. 18, 1951, Palileo obtained from Cosio a loan of P12,000, to secure payment, Cosio required Palileo to sign a document known as “conditional sale of residential building”, purporting to convey to Cosio, with a right to repurchase (on the part of Palileo), a two-story building of strong materials belonging to Palileo. After execution of the document, Cosio insured the building against fire with Associated Insurance & Surety Co. (Associated) for 15,000.The insurance policy was issued in the name of Cosio. The building was partly destroyed by fire and after proper demand; Cosio was able to collect from the insurance company an indemnity of P13, 107. Palileo demanded from Cosio that she be credited with the necessary amount to pay her obligation out of the insurance proceeds, but Cosio refused to do so. Trial Court found that the debt had an unpaid balance of P12T. It declared the obligation of Palileo to Cosio fully compensated by virtue of the proceeds collected by Cosio and further held that the excess of P1,107 (13,107 – 12,000) be refunded to Palileo. ISSUE: Whether or not the obligation of Palileo fully compensated by the insurance amount that Cosio was able to collect. RULING: No. The rule is that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” The lower court erred in declaring that the proceeds of the insurance taken out by Cosio on the property insured to the benefit of Palileo and in ordering the former to deliver to the latter, the difference between the indebtedness and the amount of insurance received by Cosio.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Palileo V Cosio

    Uploaded by

    kenner
    150 views1 page
    Palileo v. Cosio 17 SCRA 196 (1966) FACTS: On Dec. 18, 1951, Palileo obtained from Cosio a loan of P12,000, to secure payment, Cosio required Palileo to sign a document known as “conditional sale of residential building”, purporting to convey to Cosio, with a right to repurchase (on the part of Palileo), a two-story building of strong materials belonging to Palileo. After execution of the document, Cosio insured the building against fire with Associated Insurance & Surety Co. (Associated) for 15,000.The insurance policy was issued in the name of Cosio. The building was partly destroyed by fire and after proper demand; Cosio was able to collect from the insurance company an indemnity of P13, 107. Palileo demanded from Cosio that she be credited with the necessary amount to pay her obligation out of the insurance proceeds, but Cosio refused to do so. Trial Court found that the debt had an unpaid balance of P12T. It declared the obligation of Palileo to Cosio fully compensated by virtue of the proceeds collected by Cosio and further held that the excess of P1,107 (13,107 – 12,000) be refunded to Palileo. ISSUE: Whether or not the obligation of Palileo fully compensated by the insurance amount that Cosio was able to collect. RULING: No. The rule is that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” The lower court erred in declaring that the proceeds of the insurance taken out by Cosio on the property insured to the benefit of Palileo and in ordering the former to deliver to the latter, the difference between the indebtedness and the amount of insurance received by Cosio.

    Original Title

    Palileo v Cosio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Palileo v. Cosio 17 SCRA 196 (1966) FACTS: On Dec. 18, 1951, Palileo obtained from Cosio a loan of P12,000, to secure payment, Cosio required Palileo to sign a document known as “conditional sale of residential building”, purporting to convey to Cosio, with a right to repurchase (on the part of Palileo), a two-story building of strong materials belonging to Palileo. After execution of the document, Cosio insured the building against fire with Associated Insurance & Surety Co. (Associated) for 15,000.The insurance policy was issued in the name of Cosio. The building was partly destroyed by fire and after proper demand; Cosio was able to collect from the insurance company an indemnity of P13, 107. Palileo demanded from Cosio that she be credited with the necessary amount to pay her obligation out of the insurance proceeds, but Cosio refused to do so. Trial Court found that the debt had an unpaid balance of P12T. It declared the obligation of Palileo to Cosio fully compensated by virtue of the proceeds collected by Cosio and further held that the excess of P1,107 (13,107 – 12,000) be refunded to Palileo. ISSUE: Whether or not the obligation of Palileo fully compensated by the insurance amount that Cosio was able to collect. RULING: No. The rule is that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” The lower court erred in declaring that the proceeds of the insurance taken out by Cosio on the property insured to the benefit of Palileo and in ordering the former to deliver to the latter, the difference between the indebtedness and the amount of insurance received by Cosio.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    150 views1 page

    Palileo V Cosio

    Uploaded by

    kenner
    Palileo v. Cosio 17 SCRA 196 (1966) FACTS: On Dec. 18, 1951, Palileo obtained from Cosio a loan of P12,000, to secure payment, Cosio required Palileo to sign a document known as “conditional sale of residential building”, purporting to convey to Cosio, with a right to repurchase (on the part of Palileo), a two-story building of strong materials belonging to Palileo. After execution of the document, Cosio insured the building against fire with Associated Insurance & Surety Co. (Associated) for 15,000.The insurance policy was issued in the name of Cosio. The building was partly destroyed by fire and after proper demand; Cosio was able to collect from the insurance company an indemnity of P13, 107. Palileo demanded from Cosio that she be credited with the necessary amount to pay her obligation out of the insurance proceeds, but Cosio refused to do so. Trial Court found that the debt had an unpaid balance of P12T. It declared the obligation of Palileo to Cosio fully compensated by virtue of the proceeds collected by Cosio and further held that the excess of P1,107 (13,107 – 12,000) be refunded to Palileo. ISSUE: Whether or not the obligation of Palileo fully compensated by the insurance amount that Cosio was able to collect. RULING: No. The rule is that “where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor, insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the insurer to the extent of the money paid.” The lower court erred in declaring that the proceeds of the insurance taken out by Cosio on the property insured to the benefit of Palileo and in ordering the former to deliver to the latter, the difference between the indebtedness and the amount of insurance received by Cosio.

    Copyright:

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

    Palileo v.

    Cosio
    17 SCRA 196 (1966)

    FACTS:
    On Dec. 18, 1951, Palileo obtained from Cosio a loan of P12,000, to secure
    payment, Cosio required Palileo to sign a document known as conditional sale of
    residential building, purporting to convey to Cosio, with a right to repurchase (on
    the part of Palileo), a two-story building of strong materials belonging to Palileo.
    After execution of the document, Cosio insured the building against fire with
    Associated Insurance & Surety Co. (Associated) for 15,000.The insurance policy was
    issued in the name of Cosio. The building was partly destroyed by fire and after
    proper demand; Cosio was able to collect from the insurance company an indemnity
    of P13, 107. Palileo demanded from Cosio that she be credited with the necessary
    amount to pay her obligation out of the insurance proceeds, but Cosio refused to do
    so. Trial Court found that the debt had an unpaid balance of P12T. It declared the
    obligation of Palileo to Cosio fully compensated by virtue of the proceeds collected
    by Cosio and further held that the excess of P1,107 (13,107 12,000) be refunded
    to Palileo.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the obligation of Palileo fully compensated by the insurance
    amount that Cosio was able to collect.
    RULING:
    No. The rule is that where a mortgagee, independently of the mortgagor,
    insures the mortgaged property in his own name and for his own interest, he is
    entitled to the insurance proceeds in case of loss, but in such case, he is not allowed
    to retain his claim against the mortgagor, but is passed by subrogation to the
    insurer to the extent of the money paid. The lower court erred in declaring that the
    proceeds of the insurance taken out by Cosio on the property insured to the benefit
    of Palileo and in ordering the former to deliver to the latter, the difference between
    the indebtedness and the amount of insurance received by Cosio.

    You might also like