Great Pacific Life v. CA 361 SCRA 677

Tirol
11. Great Pacific Life v. CA and Medarda V. Leuterio
TL;DR: A contract of group life insurance was executed between Grepalife and DBP. Dr. Leuterio,
a physician and a housing debtor of DBP applied for membership in the group life insurance plan.
He stated in his application that, to the best of his knowledge, he was in good health.
Subsequently, Dr. Leuterio died due to “massive cerebral hemorrhage.” DBP submitted a death
claim to Grepalife. Grepalife denied the claim alleging that nondisclosure of his hypertension
constituted concealment that justified the denial. His wife then filed a complaint at the RTC,
which ruled in her favor. The CA affirmed the decision. Petitioner alleged that the complaint was
instituted by the widow of Dr. Leuterio, not the real party in interest, and that DBP was the
indispensable party to the case. The SC ruled that the insured may be regarded as the real party
in interest, although he has assigned the policy for the purpose of collection, or has assigned as
collateral security any judgment he may obtain.
Facts: A contract of group life insurance was executed between petitioner Great Pacific Life
Assurance Corporation (Grepalife) and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Grepalife
agreed to insure the lives of eligible housing loan mortgagors of DBP.
On November 11, 1983, Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio, a physician and a housing debtor of DBP applied
for membership in the group life insurance plan. In an application form, Dr. Leuterio answered
questions concerning his health condition as follows:
7. Have you ever had, or consulted, a physician for a heart condition, high blood pressure,
cancer, diabetes, lung, kidney or stomach disorder or any other physical impairment?
Answer: No.
8. Are you now, to the best of your knowledge, in good health?

Answer: Yes.
On November 15, 1983, Grepalife issued a certificate as insurance coverage of Dr. Leuterio, to
the extent of his DBP mortgage indebtedness amounting to P86,200.00. On August 6, 1984, Dr.
Leuterio died due to “massive cerebral hemorrhage.”
Consequently, DBP submitted a death claim to Grepalife. Grepalife denied the claim alleging that
Dr. Leuterio was not physically healthy when he applied for an insurance coverage. Grepalife
insisted that Dr. Leuterio did not disclose he had been suffering from hypertension, which caused
his death. Allegedly, such nondisclosure constituted concealment that justified the denial of the
claim.
Respondent Medarda V. Leuterio (widow of the late Dr. Leuterio) filed a complaint with the RTC
of Misamis Oriental against Grepalife for Specific Performance with Damages. During the trial,
Dr. Hernando Mejia, who issued the death certificate, was called to testify. Dr. Mejia’s findings,
based partly from the information given by the respondent widow, stated that Dr. Leuterio
complained of headaches presumably due to high blood pressure. The inference was not
conclusive because Dr. Leuterio was not autopsied, hence, other causes were not ruled out.
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent widow and against Grepalife. On May 17,
1993, the CA sustained the trial court’s decision. Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner alleges that the complaint was instituted by the widow of Dr. Leuterio, not the real
party in interest, hence the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over the case. It argues that when
the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, Grepalife was held liable to pay the
proceeds of insurance contract in favor of DBP, the indispensable party who was not joined in
the suit.
Issue: Whether or not the complaint was instituted by the real party in interest.
Ruling: YES. The insured may be regarded as the real party in interest, although he has assigned
the policy for the purpose of collection, or has assigned as collateral security any judgment he
may obtain.
The insured private respondent did not cede to the mortgagee all his rights or interests in the
insurance, the policy stating that: In the event of the debtors death before his indebtedness with
the Creditor (DBP) shall have been fully paid, an amount to pay the outstanding indebtedness
shall first be paid to the creditor and the balance of sum assured, if there is any, shall then be
paid to the beneficiaries designated by the debtor. When DBP submitted the insurance claim
against petitioner, the latter denied payment thereof, interposing the defense of concealment
committed by the insured. Thereafter, DBP collected the debt from the mortgagor and took the
necessary action of foreclosure on the residential lot of private respondent. In Gonzales La O vs.
Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Ins. Co. the SC held:
Insured, being the person with whom the contract was made, is primarily the proper
person to bring suit thereon. xxx Subject to some exceptions, insured may thus sue,
although the policy is taken wholly or in part for the benefit of another person named or
unnamed, and although it is expressly made payable to another as his interest may appear
or otherwise. xxx Although a policy issued to a mortgagor is taken out for the benefit of
the mortgagee and is made payable to him, yet the mortgagor may sue thereon in his
own name, especially where the mortgagees interest is less than the full amount
recoverable under the policy, xxx.
xxxx
Insured may be regarded as the real party in interest, although he has assigned the policy
for the purpose of collection, or has assigned as collateral security any judgment he may
obtain.
And since a policy of insurance upon life or health may pass by transfer, will or succession to any
person, whether he has an insurable interest or not, and such person may recover it whatever
the insured might have recovered, the widow of the decedent Dr. Leuterio may file the suit
against the insurer, Grepalife.
The second assigned error refers to an alleged concealment that the petitioner interposed as its
defense to annul the insurance contract. Petitioner contends that Dr. Leuterio failed to disclose
that he had hypertension, which might have caused his death. Concealment exists where the
assured had knowledge of a fact material to the risk, and honesty, good faith, and fair dealing
requires that he should communicate it to the assured, but he designedly and intentionally
withholds the same.
As explained by the CA, there was no sufficient proof that the insured had suffered from
hypertension. Aside from the statement of the insureds widow who was not even sure if the
medicines taken by Dr. Leuterio were for hypertension, the appellant had not proven nor
produced any witness who could attest to Dr. Leuterios medical history.
The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to entitle the insurer to
rescind the contract. Misrepresentation as a defense of the insurer to avoid liability is an
affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing
evidence rests upon the insurer. In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to clearly and
satisfactorily establish its defense, and is therefore liable to pay the proceeds of the insurance.
Equity dictates that DBP should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another (Nemo cum
alterius detrimenio protest). Hence, it cannot collect the insurance proceeds, after it already
foreclosed on the mortgage. The proceeds now rightly belong to Dr. Leuterios heirs represented
by his widow, herein private respondent Medarda Leuterio.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 18341 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the petitioner is
ORDERED to pay the insurance proceeds amounting to Eighty-six thousand, two hundred
(P86,200.00) pesos to the heirs of the insured, Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio (deceased), upon
presentation of proof of prior settlement of mortgagors indebtedness to Development Bank of
the Philippines. Costs against petitioner.

Great Pacific Life v. CA 361 SCRA 677

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Great Pacific Life v. CA 361 SCRA 677

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Great Pacific Life v. CA 361 SCRA 677

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tirol

11. Great Pacific Life v. CA and Medarda V. Leuterio

8. Are you now, to the best of your knowledge, in good health?

You might also like