Tibay v. CA Digest

Tibay, et. al v Court of Appeals

GR No. 119655, 24 May 1996

Bellosillo, [J.]

Facts:

1.       In January 22 1987, the Petitioner Violeta Tibay (and Nicolas Roralso) obtained a fire insurance policy for their 2-storey from the Private Respondent Fortune Life Insurance Co. The said policy covers the period from January 23, 1987 until January 23, 1988 or one year for P600, 000 and at the agreed premium of P2, 983.50. On January 23 or the next day, petitioner made a partial payment of the premium with P600. 

2.       Unfortunately, on March 8 1987, the said building was burned to the ground. It was only two days after the fire that Petitioner Violeta advanced the full payment of the policy premium which was accepted by the insurer. On this same day, petitioner likewise filed the claim that was then referred to the insurer's adjuster. Investigation of the cause of fire commenced and the petitioner submitted the required proof of loss.

3.       Despite that, the private respondent Fortune refused to pay the insurance claim saying it as not liable due to the non-payment by petitioner of the full amount of the premium as stated in the policy.

4.       The petitioner then brought the matter to the Insurance Commission but nothing good came out. Hence this case filed.

5.       The trial court rule in favor of the petitioner. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision and held that Fortune is not liable but ordered it to return the premium paid with interest to the petitioner. Hence, this petition for review.

Issue: W/N the partial payment of the premium rendered the insurance policy ineffective?

 YES.

1.       Insurance is a contract whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event. The consideration is the premium, which must be paid at the time, way and manner as stated in the policy, and if not so paid as in this case, the policy is therefore forfeited by its own terms. In this case, the policy taken out by the petitioner provides for payment of premium in full. Since the petitioner only made partial payment with the remaining balance paid only after the fire or peril insured against has occurred, the insurance contract therefore did not take effect barring the insured from claiming or collecting from the loss of her building. 

2.       Under Section 77 of the Insurance Code (Philippine), it provides therein that "An insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies." Herein case, the controversy is on the payment of the premium. It cannot be disputed that premium is the elixir vitae of the insurance business because the insurer is required by law to maintain a reserve fund to meet its contingent obligations to the public. Due to this, it is imperative that the premium is paid fully and promptly. To allow the possibility of paying the premium even after the peril has ensued will surely undermine the foundation of the insurance business.