You are on page 1of 10

Republic of the Philippines During his lifetime, Eulogio applied for an insurance policy with

SUPREME COURT Insular Life. On 24 April 1997, Insular Life, through Josephine
Manila Malaluan (Malaluan), its agent in Gapan City, issued in favor of
Eulogio Policy No. 9011992,5 which contained a 20-Year
THIRD DIVISION Endowment Variable Income Package Flexi Plan
worth P500,000.00,6 with two riders valued at P500,000.00
G.R. No. 183526 August 25, 2009 each.7 Thus, the value of the policy amounted to P1,500,000.00.
Violeta was named as the primary beneficiary.
VIOLETA R. LALICAN, Petitioner,
vs. Under the terms of Policy No. 9011992, Eulogio was to pay the
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, AS premiums on a quarterly basis in the amount of P8,062.00,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT VICENTE R. payable every 24 April, 24 July, 24 October and 24 January of
AVILON, Respondent. each year, until the end of the 20-year period of the policy.
According to the Policy Contract, there was a grace period of 31
DECISION days for the payment of each premium subsequent to the first. If
any premium was not paid on or before the due date, the policy
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: would be in default, and if the premium remained unpaid until the
end of the grace period, the policy would automatically lapse and
become void.8
Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision2 dated 30 August 2007
and the Orders dated 10 April 20083 and 3 July 20084 of the Eulogio paid the premiums due on 24 July 1997 and 24 October
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan City, Branch 34, in Civil 1997. However, he failed to pay the premium due on 24 January
Case No. 2177. In its assailed Decision, the RTC dismissed the 1998, even after the lapse of the grace period of 31 days. Policy
claim for death benefits filed by petitioner Violeta R. Lalican No. 9011992, therefore, lapsed and became void.
(Violeta) against respondent Insular Life Assurance Company
Limited (Insular Life); while in its questioned Orders dated 10 April Eulogio submitted to the Cabanatuan District Office of Insular
2008 and 3 July 2008, respectively, the RTC declared the finality Life, through Malaluan, on 26 May 1998, an Application for
of the aforesaid Decision and denied petitioner’s Notice of Reinstatement9 of Policy No. 9011992, together with the amount
Appeal. of P8,062.00 to pay for the premium due on 24 January 1998. In
a letter10 dated 17 July 1998, Insular Life notified Eulogio that his
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case, as culled Application for Reinstatement could not be fully processed
from the records, are as follows: because, although he already deposited P8,062.00 as payment
for the 24 January 1998 premium, he left unpaid the overdue
interest thereon amounting to P322.48. Thus, Insular Life
Violeta is the widow of the deceased Eulogio C. Lalican (Eulogio).
instructed Eulogio to pay the amount of interest and to file
another application for reinstatement. Eulogio was likewise

advised by Malaluan to pay the premiums that subsequently 14 January 1999 letter of Insular Life to Violeta was DBP Check became due on 24 April 1998 and 24 July 1998. a Complaint for Death Claim Benefit. 17 September 1998.15 which was docketed as Civil Case No. 9011992.500. Life no longer acted upon Eulogio’s second Application for Reinstatement. Violeta prayed that Insular In a letter12 dated 14 January 1999. including the amount of P17. According to the Application for Reinstatement. Violeta filed with the RTC. demanding payment of the full proceeds of Policy No.16 asserting that Violeta’s Complaint had no legal or applicant’s "lifetime and good health. 9011992.417. Eulogio’s second Application for Reinstatement demand letter by agreeing to conduct a re-evaluation of Violeta’s of Policy No. Insular Life again tendered husband received Eulogio’s second Application for Reinstatement to Violeta the above-mentioned check in the amount and issued a receipt for the amount Eulogio deposited. and Eulogio failed attorney’s fees. 9011992 and P17. Violeta filed with Insular Life a claim for 2177. was rendered void by the non- deposit only until approval of said application. Insular Life informed Violeta Life be ordered to pay her death claim benefits on Policy No. On 28 September 1998. plus interest.500. Violeta’s counsel subsequently sent a letter14 dated 8 July 1999 to Without knowing of Eulogio’s death. of P25. 9011992. and cost of suit. Insular Life responded to the said September 1998. drawn in Violeta’s favor. in the amount of P1. on applicant paid in connection thereto was considered to be a which Violeta sought to recover. submitted a second Application for Reinstatement11 of Policy No. Policy No. at the time of Eulogio’s 9011992. No." and whatever amount the factual bases. In a letter13 dated 10 March 1999. her its decision rejecting Violeta’s claim.417. A while later. As Malaluan was away on a business errand. plus interests.00 deposit. settlement practice and deliberately failed to act with reasonable promptness on her insurance claim. Insular claim. on 18 9011992. Eulogio died Violeta returned the letter dated 10 March 1999 and the check of cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to electrocution. the policy would only be considered reinstated Insular Life filed with the RTC an Answer with upon approval of the application by Insular Life during the Counterclaim. as the former was informed on 21 September Without waiting for the result of the re-evaluation by Insular Life.00. representing the full refund of the payments made On 17 September 1998. 9011992. 1998. On 11 August 1999. representing On 12 February 1998. Violeta alleged that Insular Life engaged in unfair claim payment of the full proceeds of Policy No. and the premiums which became due on 24 April 1998 and Insular Life stated that it could not find any reason to reconsider 24 July 1998.00. Insular Life Regional Office in the City of San Fernando. However. that her claim could not be granted since. death. enclosed therein to the Cabanatuan District Office of Insular Life. 1998 that Eulogio had already passed away.00. on 11 October 1999. Enclosed with the payment of the 24 January 1998 premium and non-compliance with the requirements for the reinstatement of the same.00. 9011992 had already lapsed. on the same day. 0000309734.000. Violeta requested a reconsideration of the payments for the overdue interest on the premium for 24 January disallowance of her claim. By way . Insular Life maintained that Policy No.500. to reinstate the same. Eulogio went to Malaluan’s house and by Eulogio on Policy No. for the amount of P25. Malaluan forwarded to the Insular Life.

"quality of having more than one meaning" and "an idea. his In the instant case. for reinstatement. but cannot modify. 9011992 had indeed lapsed and "Any ambiguity in a contract. When the it could have been avoided by the exercise of a little care." (Polotan.] which is defined as Nowhere in the policy or in the application for reinstatement was it "one in which one of the contracting parties imposes a ready. in her Reply and Answer to Counterclaim. whose terms are susceptible of Eulogio needed to have the same reinstated: different interpretations as a result thereby. 231 SCRA 237 favor of Insular Life. The The RTC. the terms of the interpretation or construction. There is likewise no dispute that said insurance reinstated and that its approval was subject to certain conditions. the RTC rendered. 1avvphi1 Insular Life.of counterclaim. 9011992 same clearly written in terms that are simple enough to admit of x x x. the court finds the which are written in [the] Policy provisions of Policy No. Insular Life prayed that Violeta be ordered to pay made form of contract which the other party may accept or reject attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation incurred by the former. Violeta. must be read and construed against the party who drafted it on the assumption that [The] arguments [of Insular Life] are not without basis. The well-settled rule is that a contract has the force of law rendering it free from any ambiguity that would require a legal between the parties. This is clear from the terms provisions written on the face of the second application for and conditions of the contract between [Insular Life] and [Eulogio] reinstatement. a Decision in than one sense. Sr. 9011992 had been complied with and the defenses put up by Insular Life were The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary defines ambiguity as the purely invented and illusory. They are clearly not ambiguous. contract is by nature a contract of adhesion[. 1998 were not paid by [Eulogio] even after the lapse of the 31-day grace period. It is inconceivable that Reinstatement Eulogio subsequently signed and submitted to he signed it without reading and understanding its import. the provisions of the policy provisions (sic) earlier mentioned are written in simple and clear layman’s language. the court believes that insurance contract between [Eulogio] and [Insular Life] were [Eulogio] was well aware that when he filed the said application spelled out in the policy provisions of Insurance Policy No." In Nacu vs. (1994)." premiums for April 24 and July 24. 9011992: Similarly. his lapsed policy was not automatically 9011992. asserted that xxxx the requirements for the reinstatement of Policy No. Examining the said provisions. on 30 August 2007. ever mentioned that the payment of premiums would have the . equivocal or uncertain that would need further construction. In the instant case. held that Eulogio was not able to fully comply with the requirements for the reinstatement of Policy No. 296 SCRA 247). statement or expression capable of being understood in more After trial. Thus. vs. the Supreme Court stated that[:] The RTC found that Policy No.17 only one interpretation. CA. taking into account the clear provisions of the Policy same are written on the very face of the application just above the Contract between Eulogio and Insular Life and the Application for space where [Eulogio] signed his name. Court of Appeals. the dispute arises from the afore-quoted insurance policy necessarily lapsed.

It was only on the therein were merely a rehash of the issues already considered following day. Violeta filed with the RTC a Reply24 to the Motion for Reconsideration. averring that the arguments raised he died in the afternoon of that same day. Life opposed22 the said motion. As correctly pointed out by finding no cogent and compelling reason to disturb its earlier [Insular Life] there was no more application to approve because findings.20 construed in his favor. explained that: In the interim. September 18. 9011992 and in the application for reinstatement subject of this WHEREFORE. Violeta filed a Motion for interest payments. the 8 the applicant was already dead and no insurance company would November 2007 Order of the RTC was received by Violeta on 3 issue an insurance policy to a dead person. Malaluan. to [Insular Life] through its agent Josephine Reconsideration21 of the afore-mentioned RTC Decision. The evidence suggests clearly that no such that [Eulogio] was not conversant with the English language. Malaluan brought the and addressed by the RTC. it cannot express the same by interpreting the reinstatement is that pending approval thereof. consistent with the above Supreme Court ruling and The fallo of the RTC Decision thus reads: finding no ambiguity both in the policy provisions of Policy No. the RTC denied Violeta’s Motion for Reconsideration. let this case be reinstated during his lifetime is ambiguous and should be be. The RTC. the court finds no merit in [Violeta’s] contention that the that [Violeta] has failed to establish by preponderance of policy provision stating that [the lapsed policy of Eulogio] should evidence her cause of action against the defendant. Again. on 22 November 2007. Instead. wherein she reiterated . Insular Malaluan in the morning of September 17.effect of an automatic and immediate renewal of the lapsed While the court truly empathizes with the [Violeta] for the loss of policy. the court finds nothing in the aforesaid provisions that However. Pampanga for approval. all the foregoing premises considered and finding case. Per the Registry Return Receipt on record.) Therefore.18 (Emphases ours. reinstatement and that her receipt of the documents submitted by xxx [Eulogio] amounted to its approval.]" agent Ms.] which consisted only of one page. Unfortunately. 1998. the premiums paid insurance agreement in her favor where there is no need for such would be treated as a "deposit only and shall not bind the interpretation. automatic renewal was contemplated in the contract between Hence. Neither was it shown that Ms. could only Malaluan was the officer authorized to approve the application for mean that he has read its contents and that he understood them. Fernando. there is nothing that would justify a conclusion that such would even suggest an ambiguity either in the words used or in receipt amounted to an automatic reinstatement of the policy that the manner they were written.) December 2007. reinstatement[. [Violeta] did not present any proof has already lapsed. It is conceded that [Eulogio’s] payment of overdue company until this application is finally approved during my/our" premiums and interest was received by [Insular Life] through its lifetime and good health[. what was clearly stated in the application for her husband. as it is hereby DISMISSED. together with his premium and On 14 September 2007. his having personally signed the application for [Eulogio] and [Insular Life]. It is also true that [the] application for reinstatement was filed by [Eulogio] a day before his death. in the end. It is true that [Eulogio] submitted his application for reinstatement.19 (Emphasis ours. In an Order23 dated 8 November said document to [the regional office of Insular Life] in San 2007. 1998 that Ms.

provides: In an Order27 dated 3 July 2008. consideration: 9011992 just before he passed away on 17 September 1998. a Reply Extended Discussion elaborating on the arguments she had Violeta insists that her former counsel committed an honest previously made in her Motion for Reconsideration and Reply. and in the computation of the On 10 April 2008. latter’s death just shortly after the filing of the instant Petition on 8 any further discussions on the issues raised by Violeta in her August 2008. instead of a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision dated 30 August 2007. to rule that Eulogio had complied with mode of appeal that has been availed of by Violeta is the requisites for the reinstatement of Policy No. can still be reviewed despite having and against the insurer Insular Life. but need not exist 2007 had long since attained finality. In light of these circumstances. 19. and that Violeta is entitled to claim the proceeds of said policy as the primary beneficiary thereof. which Appeals.the prayer in her Motion for Reconsideration for the setting aside 2. a copy of the RTC Order dated 8 in accord with law and applicable decisions of the November 2007. on 20 May 2008. 9011992 prior to erroneous? his death. a Notice of Appeal Violeta further posits that the Court should address the question with Motion. same was filed out of time. x x x [I]nterest in the life or health of a person insured of Appeal with Motion given that the Decision dated 30 August must exist when the insurance takes effect. the RTC denied Violeta’s Notice Section. Violeta Decision dated 30 August 2007 in Civil Case No. The RTC should have construed the provisions of the Policy Contract 1. mistake in filing a Reply. Whether or not the Decision of the court a quo dated and Application for Reinstatement in favor of the insured Eulogio August 30. which denied her Motion for Reconsideration. raising the following issues for insurable interest in his own life when he reinstated Policy No. Thus. 2007.26 praying that the Order dated 10 April 2008 be set of law arising in this case involving the interpretation of the aside and that she be allowed to file an appeal with the Court of second sentence of Section 19 of the Insurance Code. Violeta argues that Eulogio still had Petition for Review on Certiorari. Violeta entreats this Reply and Reply Extended Discussion would be moot and Court to admit and give due course to her appeal even if the academic. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court in its original of the Decision dated 30 August 2007. the RTC issued an Order. which already attained finality in view of Violeta’s failure to file the rapidly deteriorated from the first week of July 2008 until the appropriate notice of appeal within the reglementary period. Despite already receiving jurisdiction has decided the case on a question of law not on 3 December 2007. and considered the special allegedly attained finality and despite the fact that the circumstances of the case. . thereafter or when the loss occurs. Supreme Court? Violeta still filed with the RTC. on 26 February 2008. Violeta directly elevated her case to this Court via the instant On the basis thereof. Violeta filed with the RTC.25 declaring that the reglementary period for appealing the said judgment. 2177 had claims that her former counsel suffered from poor health.

The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that. the RTC Decision dated 30 August 2007. which failure Appeal. but the RTC denied the illness of Violeta’s former counsel would have affected his same in an Order dated 8 November 2007. Section 1 of the Rules of Court. the failure of her former counsel to file a Notice of said date of receipt. The records of the judgment and competence as a lawyer. the RTC Decision dated 30 August 2007 in Civil Case No. 2177 already became final and executory. had long become final and executory. the Court notes that the elevation of the case to us Violeta’s own admission. assailed utter lack of proof to show that Violeta’s former counsel was in this Petition. the aggrieved party may file a Petition for denying Violeta’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. case reveal that Violeta received a copy of the 8 November 2007 Order on 3 December 2007. There is Furthermore. deteriorated only by the first week of July 2008. or until 18 December 2007. As a consequence. Violeta filed already suffering from ill health during these times.31 Violeta’s claim that her former counsel’s failure to file the proper The Court.. no court (not even this Court) can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review a case or modify a decision that has become final. therefore. finds no reversible error on the part of the remedy within the reglementary period was an honest mistake. was received on 3 December 2007.29 dated 30 August 2007. or that the a Motion for Reconsideration thereof. Thus. which rendered it or even by this Court. The events Rule 41. the reglementary period. a copy of the RTC Order dated 8 November 2007. i. lacking relevant details and supporting evidence. is unpersuasive. Violeta merely made a general averment of her former counsel’s poor health. it becomes immutable and unalterable. A judgment becomes "final and executory" by operation of law. her former counsel’s health rapidly via the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is not justified. Violeta had 15 days 30 from Moreover. In such a case. A client is November 2007 denying her Motion for Reconsideration. Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period. at the risk of occasional . It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court. Violeta filed a Notice of Appeal only on 20 May 2008. and Violeta’s Notice of Appeal was filed on 20 May 2008. By At the outset.28 provides that no appeal pertinent to Violeta’s Notice of Appeal took place months before may be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. to file a Notice of Appeal within the reglementary period binds Violeta.e. the latter cannot now disown on the basis of her bare allegation more than five months after receipt of the RTC Order dated 8 and self-serving pronouncement that the former was ill. bound by his counsel’s mistakes and negligence.32 When a final judgment is executory. July 2008.The Petition lacks merit. Without an appeal having been timely filed. RTC in denying Violeta’s Notice of Appeal for being filed beyond attributable to the latter’s deteriorating health.

but need not exist thereafter or when the interest on the premium for 24 January 1998. the so. insure under Policy No. The real point of contention called nunc pro tunc entries. where he has a relation or connection with That Policy No. it becomes evident time. The Court rules in the negative. again through Malaluan. .35 The existence of an insurable interest gives a person since the amount Eulogio simultaneously deposited was sufficient the legal right to insure the subject matter of the policy of to cover only the P8. on 26 May 1998. on 24 February 1998. 9011992. requirements in an insurance contract. It is actually beyond question that while Eulogio was The only recognized exceptions to the doctrine of immutability still alive. judgments must become final at some definite point in Upon more extensive study of the Petition. In general. the Court must correct the erroneous declaration of the RTC in its 30 August 2007 Decision that Policy Violeta makes it appear that her present Petition involves a No. interest is that interest which a person is deemed to have in the subject matter insured. and proceeds to resolve the substantive issues raised.errors. Before proceeding. 9011992 had lapsed by then. 9011992 lapsed because of Eulogio’s non-payment of the question of law.500. Policy No. or injury by the happening of the event insured Life did not act on Eulogio’s first Application for Reinstatement. and the premiums loss occurs. On the very same day. Even if the Court ignores the procedural lapses committed herein. 9011992 had already lapsed is a fact beyond or concern in it.48 overdue interests thereon.00.062. 1998. an insurable without any payment having been made. the Petition must still fail. an admission that Policy No. to cover payment for the overdue insurance takes effect.36 Section 10 of the Insurance Code indeed provides 1998. but not the P322. such that the person will derive pecuniary benefit dispute. On 17 that every person has an insurable interest in his own September 1998. he had an insurable interest in his own life. particularly.38 that had also become due on 24 April 1998 and 24 July 1998. which cause no prejudice to any herein is whether Eulogio was able to reinstate the lapsed party. Eulogio passed away. and void judgments. insurable interest in his own life until the day of his death.34 The instant case does not fall under insurance policy on his life before his death on 17 September any of these exceptions. upon the expiration of the 31-day grace period for An insurable interest is one of the most basic and essential payment of the premium. which he did and unalterability are the correction of clerical errors. Insular termination. through Malaluan.37 Section 19 of the same code also states that an interest in Reinstatement to Insular Life. 9011992 had lapsed and become void earlier. Eulogio submitted a second Application for life. depositing the life or health of a person insured must exist when the at the same time P17.00 overdue premium for 24 January insurance. against.33 that the matter of insurable interest is entirely irrelevant in the case at bar. Eulogio’s filing of his first Application for Reinstatement or advantage from the preservation of the subject matter insured with Insular Life. whether Eulogio had an existing premiums which became due on 24 April 1998 and 24 July 1998. constitutes and will suffer pecuniary loss or damage from its destruction. which fell due on 24 January 1998.

payment. before his death. The Crown Life Insurance Company. satisfied.43: indebtedness which existed at the time of lapsation is paid or renewed. through the approved by the Company during my/our lifetime and good Policy Contract. to wit: if it is not satisfied as to the insurability of the insured and if the latter does not pay all overdue premium and all other I/We agree that said Policy shall not be considered reinstated indebtedness to the insurer.41(Emphases ours. satisfactory to [Insular Life] is furnished. indebtedness in the policy years prior to reinstatement." (Emphases ours.To reinstate a policy means to restore the same to premium.42citing McGuire v. True. expressly limits the power or authority of its insurance agents. Insular Life. but Policy No. The insurer has the right to deny the reinstatement and submitted. Eulogio’s death rendered impossible full the following conditions for reinstatement should the policy lapse: compliance with the conditions for reinstatement of Policy No. (3) overdue premiums are paid with compound interest at a rate not exceeding that Relevant herein is the following pronouncement of the Court in which would have been applicable to said premium and Andres v. and to surrender the receipts for such specific conditions for the reinstatement of a lapsed policy. If this application is disapproved. Eulogio.) The Policy Contract between Eulogio and Insular Life identified In the instant case. Eulogio’s Application for connection with this application shall be considered as deposit Reinstatement and deposits for the overdue premiums and only and shall not bind the Company until this application is finally interests were already with Malaluan. and (4) The Manufacturer's Life Insurance Co. health. 39Both the Policy accept the refund of all payments made in connection herewith. 9011992 could only be considered lapsed if the following conditions are met: (1) the policy has not reinstated after the Application for Reinstatement had been been surrendered for its cash value or the period of extension as processed and approved by Insular Life during Eulogio’s lifetime a term insurance has not expired. managed to file his 10. thus: .40 "The stipulation in a life insurance policy giving the insured the privilege to reinstate it upon written application does not give the Additional conditions for reinstatement of a lapsed policy were insured absolute right to such reinstatement by the mere filing of stated in the Application for Reinstatement which Eulogio signed an application. (2) evidence of insurability and good health. After the death of the insured the until this application is approved by the Company during my/our insurance Company cannot be compelled to entertain an lifetime and good health and until all other Company application for reinstatement of the policy because the conditions requirements for the reinstatement of said Policy are fully precedent to reinstatement can no longer be determined and satisfied. Contract and the Application for Reinstatement provide for without interest. I/We also agree to paying status after it has been permitted to lapse.) I/We further agree that any payment made or to be made in It does not matter that when he died. 9011992. REINSTATEMENT Application for Reinstatement and deposit the amount for payment of his overdue premiums and interests thereon with You may reinstate this policy at any time within three years after it Malaluan.

44 (Emphasis ours. 2177. such and interests with Malaluan. Said circumstance cannot writing. just hours after filing his Application for extend the time limit for payment of premiums. does not constitute a special powers being limited to our president.) override the clear and express provisions of the Policy Contract and Application for Reinstatement. The words thereof are clear. premises considered. contracts of Civil Case No. on the ground that the Decision dated 30 the sense and meaning of the terms. failed to fully understand the import and meaning of the provisions of his Policy Contract and/or Application for WHEREFORE. .45 SO ORDERED. for processing and approval by the latter. The Court AFFIRMS the Orders dated 10 April insurance is to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and 2008 and 3 July 2008 of the RTC of Gapan City. Lalican’s insurance. 9011992 reinstated. 9011992 remained lapsed and void. Branch 34. No themselves have used. 9011992. cannot claim any death benefits from Insular Life on the basis of Policy No. ordinary and popular sense. therefore. they must be taken and understood in their plain. the Court DENIES the Reinstatement. and operate to remove the Malaluan did not have the authority to approve Eulogio’s prerogative of Insular Life thereunder to approve or disapprove Application for Reinstatement. the Court cannot arbitrarily burden Insular Life with the payment of proceeds on a lapsed The Court agrees with the RTC that the conditions for insurance policy. A construction in favor of the insured is not called for. are to be construed according to Notice of Appeal. like other contracts. and simple enough so as to preclude any mistake in for Reinstatement before Eulogio’s death. denying petitioner Violeta R. The function and duty of the courts consist simply in could not admit of any meaning or interpretation other than those enforcing and carrying out the contracts actually made. as there is no ambiguity in the said Policy No. If such terms are clear and unambiguous. reinstated in accordance with the Policy Contract and Application unequivocal. Justice and fairness must equally apply to all reinstatement under the Policy Contract and Application for parties to a case. which the parties. not having been provisions in the first place. was already final and executory. which the parties August 2007 subject thereof. yet.Our agents have no authority to make or modify this contract. the appreciation of the same. 46 that they so obviously embody. leaves her practically empty-handed. but she is entitled to receive the full refund of Violeta did not adduce any evidence that Eulogio might have the payments made by Eulogio thereon. to Eulogio’s death. as the tragic and fateful turn of events accompanying deposits. Courts are not permitted to make contracts for Reinstatement were written in clear and simple language. both of which he voluntarily signed. Violeta. While it is a instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the cardinal principle of insurance law that a policy or contract of Rules of Court. Malaluan still had to turn over to the Application for Reinstatement. forfeiture or any of our rights or requirements. Even though the Court Insular Life Eulogio’s Application for Reinstatement and commiserates with Violeta. in strictly as against the insurer company. costs. vice-president or persons circumstance that can persuade this Court to already consider authorized by the Board of Trustees and only in Policy No. to waive any Reinstatement and depositing his payment for overdue premiums lapsation.