Tai Tong Chuache & Co. vs. Insurance Commission ; G.R. No. L-55397 February 29, 1988
Complainants acquired from Rolando Gonzales a parcel of land and a building in Davao City. Complainants assumed the mortgage of the building in favor of S.S.S., which building was insured with respondent S.S.S. Accredited Group of Insurers for P25,000.00.
On April 19, 1975, Azucena Palomo obtained a loan from Tai Tong Chuache Inc. in the amount of P100,000.00. To secure the payment of the loan, a mortgage was executed over the land and the building in favor of Tai Tong Chuache & Co. Arsenio Chua, representative of Thai Tong Chuache & Co. insured the latter’s interest with Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corporation for P100,000.00.
Pedro Palomo secured a Fire Insurance Policy with other insurance companies. On July 31, 1975, the building and the contents were totally razed by fire.
Based on the computation of the loss, including the Travellers Multi- Indemnity, respondents, Zenith Insurance, Phil. British Assurance and S.S.S. Accredited Group of Insurers, paid their corresponding shares of the loss. Complainants were paid the following: P41,546.79 by Philippine British Assurance Co., P11,877.14 by Zenith Insurance Corporation, and P5,936.57 by S.S.S. Group of Accredited Insurers . Demand was made from respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity for its share in the loss but the same was refused. Hence, complainants demanded from the other three (3) respondents the balance of each share in the loss based on the computation of the Adjustment Standards Report excluding Travellers Multi-Indemnity in the amount of P30,894.31 (P5,732.79-Zenith Insurance: P22,294.62, Phil. British: and P2,866.90, SSS Accredited) but the same was refused, hence, this action.
Travellers Insurance, on its part, admitted the issuance of the Policy No. 599 DV and alleged as its special and affirmative defenses the following, to wit: that Fire Policy No. 599 DV, covering the furniture and building of complainants was secured by a certain Arsenio Chua, mortgage creditor, for the purpose of protecting his mortgage credit against the complainants; that the said policy was issued in the name of Azucena Palomo, only to indicate that she owns the insured premises; that the policy contains an endorsement in favor of Arsenio Chua as his mortgage interest may appear to indicate that insured was Arsenio Chua and the complainants; that the premium due on said fire policy was paid by Arsenio Chua; that respondent Travellers is not liable to pay complainants.
Tai Tong Chuache & Co. filed a complaint in intervention claiming the proceeds of the fire Insurance Policy No. F-559 DV, issued by respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity.
Whether or not Tai Tong Chuache has insurable interest.
Yes. Respondent insurance company did not assail the validity of the insurance policy taken out by petitioner over the mortgaged property. Neither did it deny that the said property was totally razed by fire within the period covered by the insurance. Respondent, as mentioned earlier advanced an affirmative defense of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner that before the occurrence of the peril insured against the Palomos had already paid their credit due the petitioner. Respondent having admitted the material allegations in the complaint, has the burden of proof to show that petitioner has no insurable interest over the insured property at the time the contingency took place. Upon that point, there is a failure of proof. Respondent, exerted no effort to present any evidence to substantiate its claim, while petitioner did. For said respondent’s failure, the decision must be adverse to it. Respondent Commission’s findings are based upon a mere inference in absolving the respondent.
The record of the case shows that the petitioner to support its claim for the insurance proceeds offered as evidence the contract of mortgage which has not been cancelled nor released. It has been held in a long line of cases that when the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove non-payment for it is presumed. The validity of the insurance policy taken by petitioner was not assailed by private respondent. Moreover, petitioner’s claim that the loan extended to the Palomos has not yet been paid was corroborated by Azucena Palomo who testified that they are still indebted to the petitioner.
Public respondent argues however, that if the civil case really stemmed from the loan granted to Azucena Palomo by petitioner the same should have been brought by Tai Tong Chuache or by its representative in its own behalf. From the above premise respondent concluded that the obligation secured by the insured property must have been paid.
The premise is correct but the conclusion is wrong. Citing Rule 3, Sec. 2 respondent pointed out that the action must be brought in the name of the real party in interest. We agree. However, it should be borne in mind that petitioner being a partnership may sue and be sued in its name or by its duly authorized representative. The fact that Arsenio Lopez Chua is the representative of petitioner is not questioned. Petitioner’s declaration that Arsenio Lopez Chua acts as the managing partner of the partnership was corroborated by respondent insurance company. Thus, Chua as the managing partner of the partnership may execute all acts of administration including the right to sue debtors of the partnership in case of their failure to pay their obligations when it became due and demandable. Or at the very least, Chua being a partner of petitioner Tai Tong Chuache & Company is an agent of the partnership. Being an agent, it is understood that he acted for and in behalf of the firm. Public respondent’s allegation that the civil case flied by Arsenio Chua was in his capacity as personal creditor of spouses Palomo has no basis.
The respondent insurance company having issued a policy in favor of herein petitioner which policy was of legal force and effect at the time of the fire, it is bound by its terms and conditions. Upon its failure to prove the allegation of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner, respondent insurance company is and must be held liable.
The court ordered Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corporation to pay the petitioner the face value of Insurance Policy No. 599-DV in the amount of P100,000.00.
Please check out our tags for more personal case digests!
abuse of rights Administrative Law Agency alteration Article 19 Article 26 of the Family Code article 36 Article 148 of the Family Code Article 153 of the Family Code Bill of Rights capacity to contract marriage Case Digest Chain of Custody Civil Code civil law Civil Procedure commercial law Company Policies Conflicts of Law Constitutional Law Constitutional Rights of Employers and Employees Corporate Law court of appeals Credit Card Credit Transactions criminal law criminal procedure Different Kind Of Obligations dismissal divorce Donation Dreamwork easements ec2 Effect of Partial payment ejusdem generis Election Law Eminent Domain Employee’s Rights evidence Expropriation Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation family code family home Federico O Borromeo Inc Foreclosure foreign divorce forgery G.R. No. 107019 G.R. No. 119122 Government Service Insurance System Injunction instagram Insurable Interest Insurance Intellectual Property japan Judicial review Just Compensation L-26002 labor law Law School Local Government Code marriage NAIA Terminal 3 National Labor Relations Commission negotiable instrument Oblicon Obligation and Contracts Payment through Agent Persons and Family Relations Philippine Airlines Philippine Airlines Inc. Philippine Basketball Association Philippine citizenship Police power Political Law Ponente Premium Payment programming property Provisional Remedies Psychological Incapacity public officers R.S. Tomas Inc. Reinsurance Remedial Law Residence Rights to Security of Tenure and Due Process San Miguel Properties security Seven (7) Cardinal Rights of Workers shrines Social justice Sources of Labor Rights and Obligations Succession Taxation Law temple tokyo TYPES of Employees