a.

A member of the MILF or Abu Sayyaf may be insured with a company licensed to do business under
the Insurance Code. The prohibition in insuring is if one is a public enemy. To be considered as public
enemy, it is necessary that the Philippines is at war and that the person is a citizen of the country with
which the Philippines is at war with. Here, a member of the MILF or Abu Sayyaf is a citizen of the
Philippines and not of another country.

b. BD has an insurable interest within the meaning of the Insurance Code of the Philippines. The
maximum coverage covered by the PDIC is now PHP 500,000. Since the deposit of BD is PHP 500,000,
the whole amount of the deposit is insured by the PDIC.
The cash and carry rule means that no insurance policy or contract of insurance issued by the insurance
company is valid unless the premium has been paid for it. Any agreement contrary to such is void.

The exceptions to Sec. 77 of the Insurance Code are as follows:

1. whenever the grace period provision applies in case of life or industrial life policy;

2. when the insurer acknowledged the receipt of the premium in the insurance policy or contract of
insurance (even if premium was not really paid);

3. when the parties agreed to payment in installments of the premium and partial payment has been
made at the time of the loss;

4. when the insurer grants a credit term for the payment of the premium and loss occurs before the
expiration of the credit term; and
5. when the insurer is in estoppel.

Double or multiple insurance exists when the same person is insured by several insurers separately in
the same subject and the risk or peril insured is also the same.

Here, the person insured is the same and there are several insurance companies that insured separately,
concerning the same subject matter and the risk or peril insured against is the same. All insurance
policies are life insurance policies of Brian with Briana as his beneficiary. Thus, there is multiple
insurance.

Over-insurance on the other hand exists when the amount of insurance is greater than the insured's
insurable interest.

Here, there is over-insurance since the insurable interest is only PHP 500,000 and the policies taken
were more than PHP 500,000.

In this case, since there is over-insurance and multiple insurance, the insurers are liable pro-rata and
that the insured cannot recover more than the amount of his insurable interest. Thus, Briana cannot
claim from the insurance companies more than PHP 500,000 and that the liability of the insurance
companies are pro-rated as to that amount.
The conditions required for a valid cancellation of health care agreements are as follows:

1. there must be prior notice of cancellation;

2. such notice is based on the occurrence of the ground/s mentioned in the policy after the effective
date of the policy;

3. such must be in writing, mailed, or delivered to the insured at the adress stated in the policy;

4. the ground for cancellation must be stated.

The spouses have the right to demand payment of the proceeds. The Insurance Code provides that no
contract or insurance policy on property shall be enforceable except for the benefit of some person
having insurable interest in the property insured. Here, the person having insurable interest in the
property insured is the spouses. Thus, as the law provides, the insurer cannot be compelled to pay the
proceeds of the insurance policy to Chicks Corp who has no insurable interest in the property insured.
The meaning of "as is basis" is that when renewing the policy of insurance upon its expiration of the
insurance coverage, there would be no changes in the original policy and that the policy would be
renewed as it is.

The heirs of the tanod may recover the proceeds of his insurance for accidental death. Insurable interest
exists in this case because the heirs are interested in the preservation of the life of the insured life
despite the insurance. Because of this, the heirs of the tanod may recover the proceeds of his insurance
for accidental death.
Violeta is not entitled to the proceeds of the insurance policy because the policy was not reinstated. In
this case, the Application for Reinstatement of Policy was only passed but was not yet processed and
approved at the time of Eulogio's death. Thus, the policy was not yet reinstated and hence, Violeta is not
entitled to the proceeds of the insurance policy. However, jurisprudence provides that she is entitled to
receive the full refund of the payments made by Eulogio.
Double or multiple insurance exists when the same person is insured by several insurers separately with
regard to the same subject matter.

An example is that A procured property insurance for his property worth PHP 500,000. A procured it
from Insurance Company A for the amount of PHP 250,000, Insurance Company B for the amount of PHP
200,000 and Insurance Company C for the amount of PHP 200,000. In this case there is multiple
insurance.

However in this case it resulted to over-insurance because the value of the property is only PHP 500,000
but the total value of property insurance undertaken totaled PHP 650,000.

Multiple insurance does not immediately result to over-insurance. It only results to over-insurance when
the insurance policies exceed the insurable interest because the insured cannot recover more than his
insurable interest.

The authorized driver clause provides that the driver, other than the insured owner, must be duly
licensed to drive the motor vehicle otherwise the insurer cannot be held liable. However, if the insured
is the driver, he does not need to present proof that he has a driver's license at the time of the accident.
Here, since Manuel, the insured, was the one driving at the time of the accident, even if his driver's
license is expired, the insurer SUMO Insurance cannot escape the liability on such ground since Manuel
was the one driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, the denial is not correct.
If I were the judge, I would rule that Mayon Insurance Company is not liable. In this case, there is an
alteration in the condition of the thing insured which was made without the consent of the insurer. The
insured machineries and equipment were transferred to a location that is different from that indicated
in the policy which changes the condition of the thing insured. The Insurance Code provides that such is
an alteration in the condition of the thing insured. Since in this case there was a material alteration as
to the condition of the thing insured and such alteration was made without the consent of the insurer,
the insurer Mayon Insurance Company may rescind the fire insurance policy and hence cannot be held
liable for the proceeds of the policy.