[G.R. No. 42874. October 22, 1935. ]
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARIA NARCISA SUVA, as administratrix of the intestate estate of Benito Patrocinio Suva, defendant and appellee. FELICIDAD CRUZ, intervenor and appellant, MARIA NARCISA SUVA, Intervenor-Appellee.
Araneta, Zaragoza & Araneta for plaintiff.
Jose Gutierrez David for intervenors.
LIFE INSURANCE POLICY; ATTEMPTED CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY. — The conclusion of the trial court is sustained by the decision in the case of Gercio v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (48 Phil., 53), and the American authorities therein cited. The attempted change of beneficiary made by the insured on August 16, 1933, no right to change having been reserved, and endorsed by the company on the back of the policy on August 24, 1933, was due to a mutual mistake. The application in which the insured, over his personal signature, renounced the right to change the beneficiary, should prevail over the printed phrase "WITH RIGHT OF REVOCATION" which occurs in the policy. It is to be noted that the application itself is made a part of the contract.
D E C I S I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in an action brought by the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., for the cancellation of two policies of P5,000 each issued and delivered by it upon the life of Benito Patrocinio Suva, now deceased. The action was originally brought only against the administratrix of the estate of the insured, but by leave of court, Maria Narcisa Suva, in her own right, and Felicidad Cruz filed their interventions claiming to be the beneficiaries of the two policies involved in this action.
The first of the policies, numbered 47726, bears date of December 1, 1932, and names as beneficiary Isabel Simbulan, the wife of the insured. The second of the said policies, numbered 48819, bears date of February 1, 1933, and names as beneficiary the appellee, Maria Narcisa Suva, sister of the insured. The company acknowledges having received the premium due on said policies for the first year and tenders the return of the same in its petition. The intervenors, besides praying for judgment for the amount due on said policies, also pray for P1,000 each as damages.
The ground alleged by the plaintiff for the cancellation of said policies is that the insured made false statements as to the past and present state of his health in his applications which, by the terms of the policies themselves, are made a part of the contract. The applicant was examined on October 17, 1932, by Dr. G. Ocampo, one of the physicians of the company. He was again examined on December 28, 1932, by Dr. M. Llora, a physician of the company sent out from the home office for that purpose. In connection with his first application for policy No. 47726, among the numerous questions with relation to specific diseases, the following questions and answers appear in the report of Dr. Ocampo (Exhibit B):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph