H.H. HOLLERO CONSTRUCTION, INC.

, petitioner,
vs.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
and POOL OF MACHINERY INSURERS, respondents.

9. Hollero vs GSIS

Hollero and GSIS entered into a project agreement for the development of housing units of GSIS. Pursuant to such,
Hollero obtained a Contractor’s All Risks Policy from GSIS. One of the provisions of the policy states that all the benefits
thereunder shall be forfeited if no action is instituted within twelve months after the rejection of the claim for loss, damage
or liability.

There were three typhoons that occurred.

Because of "Biring", "Huaning" and "Saling", the typhoons insured property was damaged and the insured made several
claims for indemnity on June 30, 1988, August 25, 1988 and October 18, 1988 from GSIS. In a letter dated April 26,
1990, GSIS rejected the claims for indemnity for damages wrought by typhoons "Biring" and "Huaning". In a letter dated
June 21, 1990, GSIS also denied the claim for damages caused by typhoon "Saling". In a letter dated April 18, 1991, the
insured impugned the rejection of the claims and reiterated its demand for settlement of the claims. On September 27,
1991, the insured filed a complaint against GSIS. The insured claims that the GSIS letters dated April 26, 1990 and June
21, 1990 did not amount to a "final rejection" of the claim.

Issue: Whether or not the action has prescribed?

Ruling: Affirmative. The insured's causes of action accrued from its receipt of the letters dated April 26, 1990 and June
21, 1990, or the date the GSIS rejected its claims in the first instance. Since the insured allowed more than twelve (12)
months to lapse before filing the necessary action on September 27, 1991, its causes of action had already prescribed.
EAGLE STAR INSURANCE Co., LTD., KURRSTEAMSHIP Co., INC., ROOSEVELT
STEAMSHIPAGENCY, INC., and LEIF HOEGH & COMPANY, A/S. ,petitioners
vs. CHIA YU, respondent.

2. Eagle Star vs Chia Yu

14 bales of assorted underwear were to be shipped from California to Manila and the same were consigned to Chia Yu.
The goods were insured against all risks by Eagle Star Ins. Co.

When the goods were discharged at the terminal, of the 14 bales consigned, only 10 were delivered to Chia Yu and the
remaining 4 could not be found.

Chia Yu sought to claim indemnity from the insurance company, however, it was denied on the ground of prescription.

The policy issued for the goods provided that “No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim, shall be
sustainable in any court of law or equity unless the insured has complied with all the terms and conditions of this policy,
nor unless commenced within twelve (12) months next after the happening of the loss xxx".

Issue: Whether or not the stipulation is valid.

Ruling: NEGATIVE.

The stipulation is void for if it will be given effect, the period allowed the insured for bringing the action would be
reduced to less than one year from the time the cause of action accrues. This is so because the said clause makes the
prescriptive period begin from the happening of the loss and at the same time requires the filing of a claim after the loss
against the carrier, and that a copy of the reply of the carrier should be sent to the insurer. Compliance with this condition
will necessarily consume time and thus shorten the period for bringing suit to less than one year if the period will be
computed from the happening of the loss.