You are on page 1of 3

Pacific Banking Corporation vs. CA & Oriental Assurance should be included with notice of loss.

Pacific failed to
[GR. No. L-41014 28 November 1988] submit formal claim of loss with supporting documents
but shifted the burden to the insurance company. Failing
Facts: An open Fire Policy issued to Paramount Shirt to submit claim is failure for insurance company to reject
Manufacturing for Php61,000 on the following: stocks, claim. Thus, a lack ofcause of action to file suit.
materils, supplies, furniture, fixture, machinery,
equipment contained on the 1st to 3rd floors. Insurance Furthermore, the mortgage clause in the policy
is for a year starting 21 OCTOBER 1964. specifically provides that the policy is invalidated by
Paramount Shirt is debtor of Pacific Banking amounting FRAUD. Concealment can easily be fraud or
to Php800,000. Goods in policy were held in trust misrepresentation.
by Paramount for Pacific under thrust receipts. Fire
broke out on 4 January 1964. The insured – PARAMOUNT is not entitled to proceeds.
Moreso, Pacific as indorsee of policy is not entitled.
Pacific sent letter of demand to Oriental. Insurance
Adjuster ofOriental notified Pacific to submit proof of
loss pursuant to Policy Condition 11. Pacific did not
accede but asked Insurance Adjuster toverify records ALFREDO CHING VS. CA G.R. NO. 110844
form Bureau of Customs. (2000)

Pacific filed for sum of money Facts: P was charged before the Makati RTC with Estafa,
against Oriental. Oriental alleged that Pacific in relation to the “Trust Receipts Law.” Thereafter, P
prematurely filed a suit, for neither filing a formal claim filed before the Manila RTC for declaration of nullity of
over loss pursuant to policy nor submitting any proof of documents and for damages. P then filed a petition
loss. before the Makati RTC for the suspension of the criminal
proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question in a
Trial court decided in favor of Pacific. Decision based on civil action.
technicality. The defense of lack of proof of loss and
defects were raised for the 1st time. (On presentation of Issue: Whether there is a prejudicial question
evidences by Pacific, it was revealed there was violation Held: No. The two essential requisites of a prejudicial
of Condition No.3, there were undeclared co-insurances question are: (1) the civil action involves an issue similar
under same property –Wellington, Empire, Asian. The or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
only declared co-insurances were Malayan, South Sea, action; and (2) the resolution of such issue determines
and Victory) whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In the
CA reversed decision. Concealment of other co- case at bar, the alleged prejudicial question in the civil
insurances is a misrepresentation and can easily be case for the declaration of nullity of documents and for
fraud. damages, does not determine the guilt or innocence of
the accused in the criminal action for estafa. Assuming
Issues: (1) Whether or not unrevealed con-insurances is arguendo that the court hearing the civil aspect of the
a violation of Policy Condition No.3 case adjudicates that the transaction entered into
between the parties was not a trust receipt agreement,
(2) Whether or not there was premature filing of action nonetheless the guilt of the accused could still be
Held: established and his culpability under penal laws
determined by other evidence.
(1) Yes. Policy Condition 3 provides that the insured
must give notice of any insurance already in effect or ROLANDO TING vs..HEIRS OF DIEGO LIRIO, namely:
subsequently be in effect covering same property being FLORA A. LIRIO, AMELIA L. ROSKA, AURORA L.
insured. Failure to do so, the policy shall be forfeited. ABEJO, ALICIAL. DUNQUE, ADELAIDA L. DAVID,
Failure to reveal before the loss of the 3 other insurances Facts:1.Judge Alfredo Marigomen of the then Court of
is a clear misrepresentation or a false declaration. The First Instance of Cebu, Branch 7, granted the application
material fact was asked for but was not revealed. filedby the Spouses Diego Lirio and Flora Atienza for
Representations of facts are the foundations of the registration of title to Lot No. 18281 (the lot) of the
contract. Pacific itself provided for the evidences in trial CebuCadastral 12 Extension, Plan Rs-07-000787.
court that proved existence of misrepresentation.
2.The decision in LRC No. N-983 became final and
(2) Yes. Policy Condition 11 is a sine qua non executory on January 29, 1977. Judge Marigomen
requirement for maintaining action. It requires that thereafterissued an order of November 10, 1982
documents necessary to prove and estimate the loss directing the Land Registration Commission to issue the
correspondingdecree of registration and the certificate of land issought to be established. After the ownership has
title in favor of the spouses Lirio. been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration,
nofurther proceeding to enforce said ownership is
3.On February 12, 1997, Rolando Ting (petitioner) filed necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had
with the RTC of Cebu an application for registration of beenin possession of the land and the winning party
titleto the same lot. desires to oust him therefrom.Furthermore, there is no
4.The herein respondents, heirs of Diego Lirio, namely: provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6,
Flora A. Lirio, Amelia L. Roska, Aurora L. Abejo, Alicia Rule 39, regarding the executionof a judgment in a civil
L.Dunque, Adelaida L. David, Efren A. Lirio and Jocelyn action, except the proceedings to place the winner in
Anabelle L. Alcover, who were afforded the possession by virtue of a writ ofpossession. The decision
opportunityto file an opposition to petitioner’s in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing
application by Branch 21 of the Cebu RTC, filed party is in possession, becomesfinal without any further
their Answercalling attention to the December 10, 1976 action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting
decision in LRC No. N-983 which had become final and an appeal.
executory on January 29,1977 and which, they argued, Cuenco vs. CA G.R. No. L-24742, October 26,
barred the filing of petitioner’s application on the ground 1973
of res judicata.

5.After hearing the respective sides of the parties,

Branch 21 of the Cebu RTC, on motion of
respondents,dismissed petitioner’s application on the o The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the
ground of res judicata.
estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the
6.Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
exclusion of all other courts
Issue: Whether or not the property is exempt from
execution.Held: Affirmative FACTS:

Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco died in Manila. He was
reading:SEC. 6. survived by his widow and two minor sons, residing in
Quezon City, and children of the first marriage, residing
Execution by motion or by independent action. – A final in Cebu. Lourdes, one of the children from the first
and executory judgment or order may beexecuted on marriage, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration
motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. with the Court of First Instance (CFI) Cebu, alleging that
After the lapse of such time, and before it isbarred by the the senator died intestate in Manila but a resident of
statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by Cebu with properties in Cebu and Quezon City.
action. The revived judgment may also beenforced by
motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry The petition still pending with CFI Cebu, Rosa Cayetano
and thereafter by action before it is barred bythe statute Cuenco, the second wife, filed a petition with CFI Rizal
of limitations. for the probate of the last will and testament, where she
was named executrix. Rosa also filed an opposition and
Sta. Ana v. Menla, et al. enunciates theraison d’etre why motion to dismiss in CFI Cebu but this court held in
Section 6, Rule 39 does not apply in land abeyance resolution over the opposition until CFI
registrationproceedings.Authority for this theory is the Quezon shall have acted on the probate proceedings.
provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that
Lourdes filed an opposition and motion to dismiss in CFI
judgment may be enforced within5 years by motion, and
Quezon, on ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or
after five years but within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, improper venue, considering that CFI Cebu already
Rule 39.) acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The
opposition and motion to dismiss were denied. Upon
The provision of theRules refers to civil actions and is
appeal CA ruled in favor of Lourdes and issued a writ of
not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land
prohibition to CFI Quezon.
registration case. This isso because a party in a civil
action must immediately enforce a judgment that is ISSUEs:
secured as against theadverse party, and his failure to act
to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided
in the Rulesmakes the decision unenforceable against
the losing party. o Whether or not CA erred in issuing the writ of
In special proceedings the purpose is to establish prohibition
astatus, condition or fact; in land registration
proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of
o Whether or not CFI Quezon acted without jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance and
assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the probate
proceedings in pursuance to CFI Cebu's order expressly
consenting in deference to the precedence of probate
over intestate proceedings


The Supreme Court found that CA erred in law in issuing

the writ of prohibition against the Quezon City court
from proceeding with the testate proceedings and
annulling and setting aside all its orders and actions,
particularly its admission to probate of the last will and
testament of the deceased and appointing petitioner-
widow as executrix thereof without bond pursuant to the
deceased testator's wish.

On Venue and Jurisdiction

Under Rule 73, the court first taking cognizance of the

settlement of the estate of a decent, shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.

The residence of the decent or the location of his estate is

not an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter but
merely of venue. If this were otherwise, it would affect
the prompt administration of justice.

The court with whom the petition is first filed must also
first take cognizance of the settlement of the estate in
order to exercise jurisdiction over it to the exclusion of
all other courts.