Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation v Philamlife (Insurance

Philamlife) entered into an agreement denominated as Creditor Group Life Policy
No. P-19202 with petitioner Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation (Eternal).
Under the policy, the clients of Eternal who purchased burial lots from it on i
nstallment basis would be insured by Philamlife. The amount of insurance coverag
e depended upon the existing balance of the purchased burial lots.

Eternal was required under the policy to submit to Philamlife a list of all new
lot purchasers, together with a copy of the application of each purchaser, and t
he amounts of the respective unpaid balances of all insured lot purchasers. In r
elation to the instant petition, Eternal complied by submitting a letter dated D
ecember 29, 1982,4 containing a list of insurable balances of its lot buyers for
October 1982. One of those included in the list as "new business" was a certain
John Chuang. His balance of payments was PhP 100,000. On August 2, 1984, Chuang

Eternal sent a letter dated August 20, 19845 to Philamlife, which served as an i
nsurance claim for Chuang's death.
After more than a year, Philamlife had not furnished Eternal with any reply to t
he latter's insurance claim. This prompted Eternal to demand from Philamlife the
payment of the claim for PhP 100,000 on April 25, 1986.8

In response to Eternal's demand, Philamlife denied Eternal's insurance claim in
a letter dated May 20, 1986. Consequently, Eternal filed a case before the Makat
i City Regional Trial Court (RTC).

(1) RTC : in favor of Eternal. due to Philamlife's inaction from the submission
of the requirements of the group insurance on December 29, 1982 to Chuang's deat
h on August 2, 1984, as well as Philamlife's acceptance of the premiums during t
he same period, Philamlife was deemed to have approved Chuang's application. The
RTC said that since the contract is a group life insurance, once proof of death
is submitted, payment must follow.
(2) CA : in favor of Philamlife. there being no application form, Chuang was not
covered by Philamlife's insurance.

May the inaction of the insurer on the insurance application be considered as ap

13 The burden of evi dence has shifted to Philamlife. states that the insurance forms for the attached list of bu rial lot buyers were attached to the letter.proval of the application? RULING: YES As earlier stated. Philamlife failed to do so. there shall be no insurance if the app lication of the Lot Purchaser is not approved by the Company. Such rec eipt is an admission by Philamlife against its own interest. which Philamlife stamped as received. The insurance of any eligible Lot Purchaser shall be effective on the date he co ntracts a loan with the Assured. The first sentence appears to state that the insurance coverage of the cli ents of Eternal already became effective upon contracting a loan with Eternal wh ile the second sentence appears to require Philamlife to approve the insurance c ontract before the same can become effective. It must be remembered that an insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the in surer in order to safeguard the latter's interest. . it is provided that: EFFECTIVE DATE OF BENEFIT. 1982. However. thus. the letter dated December 29. The fact of the matter is. However. An examination of the above provision would show ambiguity between its two sente nces. which must prove that the letter did not contai n Chuang's insurance application. In the policy. P-1920 dated December 10. Such stamp of receipt has the effec t of acknowledging receipt of the letter together with the attachments. Philamlife and Eternal entered into an agreement denominated as Creditor Group Life Policy No. 1980. Phi lamlife is deemed to have received Chuang's insurance application.

The termination of th e insurance contract by the insurer must be explicit and unambiguous. . valid. P-1920 on the Effective Da te of Benefit is in the nature of a resolutory condition which would lead to the cessation of the insurance contract. Moreover. it cannot be interpreted as a termination of the insurance contract.the seemingly conflicting provisions must be harmonized to mean that upon a part y's purchase of a memorial lot on installment from Eternal. and bi nding until terminated by Philamlife by disapproving the insurance application. The second sentence of Creditor Group Life Policy No. the mere inaction of the insurer on the insurance application must not work to prejudice the insured. an insurance contrac t covering the lot purchaser is created and the same is effective.