[ G.R. No.

207526, October 03, 2018 ]

THE INSULAR ASSURANCE CO., LTD., PETITIONER, V. THE HEIRS OF JOSE H.
ALVAREZ, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 210156, October 3, 2018]

UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. HEIRS OF JOSE H. ALVAREZ,

RESPONDENTS.

Facts:
On June 18, 1997, Alvarez applied for and was granted a housing loan by UnionBank in the amount of P648,000.00. This
loan was secured by a promissory note,[10] a real estate mortgage over the lot,[11] and a mortgage redemption insurance
taken on the life of Alvarez with UnionBank as beneficiary. Alvarez was among the mortgagors included in the list of
qualified debtors covered by the Group Mortgage Redemption Insurance that UnionBank had with Insular Life. Alvarez
passed away on April 17, 1998.[13] In May 1998, UnionBank filed with Insular Life a death claim under Alvarez's name
pursuant to the Group Mortgage Redemption Insurance. Insular Life denied the claim after determining that Alvarez was
not eligible for coverage as he was supposedly more than 60 years old at the time of his loan's approval. With the claim's
denial, the monthly amortizations of the loan stood unpaid. UnionBank sent the Heirs of Alvarez a demand letter, [16] giving
them 10 days to vacate the lot. Subsequently, on October 4, 1999, the lot was foreclosed and sold at a public auction with
UnionBank as the highest bidder.

Issue:
WON The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. is obliged to pay Union Bank of the Philippines – concealment?
WON Union Bank of the Philippines was correct in proceeding with the foreclosure following Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd.'s refusal to pay?

Held:
1. What this case involves, instead, is an allegedly false representation. Section 44 of the Insurance Code states, "A
representation is to be deemed false when the facts fail to correspond with its assertions or stipulations." If
indeed Alvarez misdeclared his age such that his assertion fails to correspond with his factual age, he made a
false representation, not a concealment. An erroneous statement's dual occurrence in the Health Statement
Form and the Background Checking Report concededly reduces the likelihood of honest mistakes or overlooked
inaccuracies. However, in the context of so many other documents being available to ascertain the error, a mere
dual occurrence does not definitively establish a fraudulent scheme. This is especially so when the errors could
not be directly and exclusively attributed to a single author. Pleading just one (1) additional document still fails
to establish the consistent fraudulent design that was Insular Life's burden to prove by clear and convincing
evidence. Insular Life had all the opportunity to demonstrate Alvarez's pattern of consistently indicating
erroneous entries for his age. All it needed to do was to inventory the documents submitted by Alvarez and note
the statements he made concerning his age. This was not a cumbersome task, yet it failed at it. Its failure to
discharge its burden of proving must thwart its plea for relief from this Court.
2. The Regional Trial Court was correct in emphasizing that Alvarez entered into the Group Mortgage Redemption
Insurance entirely upon UnionBank's prodding. Bank clients are generally unaware of insurance policies such as a
mortgage redemption insurance unless brought to their knowledge by a bank. The processing of a mortgage
redemption insurance was within UnionBank's regular course of business. It knew the import of truthfully and
carefully accomplished applications. To facilitate the principal contract of the loan and its accessory obligations
such as the real estate mortgage and the mortgage redemption insurance, UnionBank completed credit
appraisals and background checks. Thus, the Regional Trial Court was correct in noting that UnionBank had been
in possession of materials sufficient to inform itself of Alvarez's personal circumstances. UnionBank's passivity
and indifference, even when it was in a prime position to enable a more conscientious consideration, were not
just a cause of Insular Life's rescission bereft of clear and convincing proof of a design to defraud, but also,
ultimately, of the unjust seizure of Alvarez's property. By this complicity, UnionBank cannot be allowed to profit.
Its foreclosure must be annulled.