Lalican vs.

Insular Life

"Lalican vs. Insular Life" involved Jose Lalican, an Insular Life policyholder in the Philippines. The
key issue was whether Lalican's lapsed insurance policy could be reinstated and if he had a grace
period without a new medical examination. The Supreme Court ruled in Lalican's favor,
establishing the importance of "non-forfeiture clauses" in insurance policies, providing a grace
period for policyholders to reinstate lapsed policies without additional medical exams. This case
set a precedent for policyholder rights and consumer protection in the Philippines, influencing
insurance regulations and ensuring fairness for policyholders facing financial challenges.

Hilario Gercio vs. Sun Life Assurance

In the case of Hilario Gercio vs. Sun Life Assurance of Canada et al., the dispute revolved around
changing the beneficiary of a life insurance policy after divorce. Hilario Gercio sought to replace
his former wife, Andrea Zialcita, with his current wife, Adela Garcia de Gercio, as the beneficiary.
The key issue was whether Gercio had the authority to make this change when the policy did not
explicitly allow it. The court ruled in favor of Gercio, stating that without a provision allowing
beneficiary changes without consent, an insured could not unilaterally alter the designation. The
case established the principle that beneficiaries hold a vested interest, alterable only with their
consent or as stipulated in the policy.

El Oriente Fabrica de Tabacos, Inc. vs. Juan Posadas,

Collector of Internal Revenue,

In the case of "El Oriente Fabrica de Tabacos, Inc. vs. Juan Posadas, Collector of Internal
Revenue," the main issue was whether insurance proceeds from a policy on the life of a
corporate manager, intended to indemnify the corporation against potential loss, should be
subject to income tax under the Philippine Income Tax Law. The court ruled in favor of the
corporation, stating that the insurance proceeds were an indemnification for a loss rather than
taxable income. This decision was based on the ambiguity in the tax law and the absence of a
clear legislative intention to tax such proceeds received by corporations. The Collector of
Internal Revenue was ordered to refund the tax collected.
 The Philippine American Insurance Company
vs. Honorable Gregorio G. Pineda

In the case of The Philippine American Insurance Company vs. Honorable Gregorio G. Pineda
(Civil Case No. 9210), the petitioner contested Judge Gregorio G. Pineda's Orders allowing the
change of beneficiaries in a life insurance policy from irrevocable to revocable. The court ruled
that the judge's decision was erroneous. It affirmed that, under the Insurance Act, changing the
beneficiary in a life insurance contract required the consent of the beneficiary, as they held a
vested interest. The insurance policy explicitly stated the designation was irrevocable, and no
exceptions were provided by law or the policy. The court protected the interests of minor
beneficiaries, emphasizing the sanctity of contracts unless they violated legal principles. The
judge's orders were nullified, upholding the policy's irrevocable beneficiary designation.

Heirs of Loreto Maramag vs. Maramag

In the case of " Heirs of Loreto Maramag vs. Maramag," the dispute revolves around a
parcel of land and its ownership. Here's a summary of the case:

Background:

• Loreto Maramag was the registered owner of a piece of agricultural land.

• Loreto Maramag died, and his heirs inherited the land, which remained in their
possession.

Legal Issues:

• The primary legal issue in this case was the ownership and possession of the land, with
competing claims between Loreto Maramag's heirs and another individual named
Maramag.

Ruling:

• The court ruled in favor of Loreto Maramag's heirs, recognizing their rightful ownership
and possession of the land.

Outcome:
• The case resulted in a judgment in favor of the heirs of Loreto Maramag, confirming
their ownership and possession of the disputed land.

In summary, the case "Heirs of Loreto Maramag vs. Maramag" involved a dispute over
land ownership, with the court ultimately upholding the rights of Loreto Maramag's
heirs to the property.

Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of

North America
In Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, two insurance policies covered
unpaid accounts related to ready-made clothing materials sold by Intercapitol Marketing
Corporation (IMC) and Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. (LSPI). A fire destroyed the insured property
owned by Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. The insurer sought damages, claiming to have paid IMC and
LSPI's claims and being subrogated to their rights. The court ruled that IMC and LSPI had
insurable interests in unpaid accounts remaining 45 days after the loss. Gaisano Cagayan, Inc.
was held liable to the insurer due to its outstanding account with IMC, as supported by
evidence, and the insurer's right of subrogation after paying the claims was valid.

Palileo vs. Casio

The case of Palileo vs. Casio involved a legal dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land. The
central issue was whether the sale of the land from the plaintiff, Palileo, to the defendant, Casio,
was valid despite the absence of a written contract. The court ruled in favor of Casio,
emphasizing that while the law generally requires a written contract for the sale of real property,
an exception exists when partial payments and possession of the property have been made,
which can validate an oral contract. The case established that in such circumstances, oral
agreements for the sale of real property can be enforceable if certain conditions are met.

Cha vs CA
In the case of Spouses Nilo Cha and Stella Uy Cha, and United Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals and CKS Development Corporation, the core issue was the validity of a
lease contract provision stating that any fire insurance policy obtained by the lessee
without the lessor's consent would be assigned or transferred to the lessor. The
Supreme Court ruled that this provision was void as it contravened the Insurance Code,
which requires an insurable interest in property to enforce an insurance contract. CKS,
the lessor, had no insurable interest in the merchandise, so it couldn't be a valid
beneficiary. Therefore, the fire insurance policy proceeds rightfully belonged to the Cha
spouses, the lessees.

The court did not address the issue of the Cha spouses' liability to CKS for violating the
lease contract by obtaining insurance without consent.

Filipino merchants vs CA
In the case of Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Choa Tiek Seng, the
dispute revolved around a marine insurance policy covering a shipment of fishmeal. The insurer,
Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc., argued that the "all risks" policy required proof of a
specific fortuitous event for a claim to be compensable. However, the court held that under an
"all risks" policy, the burden of the insured was to show that the goods were in good condition
when the policy attached and that the cargo was damaged during transit. If there was no
evidence of damage due to an excepted peril, the insurer was liable. The court also ruled that
the consignee had an insurable interest in the goods. The insurer's arguments were rejected,
and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.

Ong lim sing vs feb leasing

This case involves a dispute between Vicente Ong Lim Sing, Jr. (Lim) and FEB Leasing & Finance
Corporation (FEB) over a lease agreement for equipment and motor vehicles. Lim guaranteed
the lease agreement's terms. When the lessee (JVL Food Products) defaulted on payments, FEB
demanded payment, which was not met. FEB filed a complaint for sum of money, damages, and
replevin against JVL, Lim, and John Doe. Lim argued that the lease agreement was, in reality, a
sale on an installment basis. The trial court ruled in favor of JVL and Lim, but the Court of
Appeals reversed the decision, stating it was a financial lease agreement. Lim appealed to the
Supreme Court, which upheld the appellate court's decision, affirming the lease agreement's
validity and terms.
 San Miguel Brewery vs. Law Union and
Rock Insurance Co. et al
The case of San Miguel Brewery vs. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co. et al. involved a
dispute over insurance policies for a property destroyed by fire. The San Miguel Brewery
sought to recover from two insurance companies, alleging that it held an interest in the
property as a mortgage creditor. The defendant, Henry Harding, also claimed a right to
recover the difference between the brewery's mortgage credit and the policy amount.
However, the insurance companies settled with the brewery, ending their liability.

The court ruled that Harding had no direct cause of action against the insurance
companies since he wasn't a party to the insurance contracts. The policies were issued in
the brewery's name, covering its insurable interest. The court also cited insurance laws
limiting coverage to the policyholder's interest. It concluded that Harding was not
entitled to relief and affirmed the judgment in favor of the insurance companies.