G.R. No.

L-9374

February 16, 1915

FRANCISCO DEL VAL, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANDRES DEL VAL, defendant-appellee. MORELAND, J.: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila dismissing the complaint with costs. The pleadings set forth that the plaintiffs and defendant are brother and sisters; that they are the only heirs at law and next of kin of Gregorio Nacianceno del Val, who died in Manila on August 4, 1910, intestate; that an administrator was appointed for the estate of the deceased, and, after a partial administration, it was closed and the administrator discharged by order of the Court of First Instance dated December 9, 1911; that during the lifetime of the deceased he took out insurance on his life for the sum of P40,000 and made it payable to the defendant as sole beneficiary; that after his death the defendant collected the face of the policy; that of said policy he paid the sum of P18,365.20 to redeem certain real estate which the decedent had sold to third persons with a right to repurchase; that the redemption of said premises was made by the attorney of the defendant in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant as heirs of the deceased vendor; that the redemption of said premises they have had the use and benefit thereof; that during that time the plaintiffs paid no taxes and made no repairs. It further appears from the pleadings that the defendant, on the death of the deceased, took possession of most of his personal property, which he still has in his possession, and that he has also the balance on said insurance policy amounting to P21,634.80. Plaintiffs contend that the amount of the insurance policy belonged to the estate of the deceased and not to the defendant personally; that, therefore, they are entitled to a partition not only of the real and personal property, but also of the P40,000 life insurance. The complaint prays a partition of all the property, both real and personal, left by the deceased; that the defendant account for P21,634.80, and that that sum be divided equally among the plaintiffs and defendant along with the other property of deceased. The defendant denies the material allegations of the complaint and sets up as special defense and counterclaim that the redemption of the real estate sold by his father was made in the name of the plaintiffs and himself instead of in his name alone without his knowledge or consent; and that it was not his intention to use the proceeds of the insurance policy for the benefit of any person but himself, he alleging that he was and is the sole owner thereof and that it is his individual property. He, therefore, asks that he be declared the owner of the real estate redeemed by the payment of the P18,365.20, the owner of the remaining P21,634.80, the balance of the insurance policy, and that the plaintiff's account for the use and occupation of the premises so redeemed since the date of the redemption. The learned trial court refused to give relief to either party and dismissed the action. It says in its opinion: "This purports to be an action for partition, brought against an heir by his coheirs. The complaint, however, fails to comply with Code Civ., Pro. sec. 183, in that it does not 'contain an adequate description of the real property of which partition is demanded.' Because of this defect (which has not been called to our attention and was discovered only after the cause was submitted) it is more than doubtful whether any relief can be awarded under the complaint, except by agreement of all the parties."

This alleged defect of the complaint was made one of the two bases for the dismissal of the action. We do not regard this as sufficient reason for dismissing the action. It is the doctrine of this court, set down in several decisions, Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24 Phil. Rep., 504, that, even though the complaint is defective to the extent of failing in allegations necessary to constitute a cause of action, if, on the trial of the cause, evidence is offered which establishes the cause of action which the complaint intended to allege, and such evidence is received without objection, the defect is thereby cured and cannot be made the ground of a subsequent objection. If, therefore, evidence was introduced on the trial in this case definitely and clearly describing the real estate sought to be partitioned, the defect in the complaint was cured in that regard and should not have been used to dismiss the action. We do not stop to inquire whether such evidence was or was not introduced on the trial, inasmuch as this case must be turned for a new trial with opportunity to both parties to present such evidence as is necessary to establish their respective claims. The court in its decision further says: "It will be noticed that the provision above quoted refers exclusively to real estate. . . . It is, in other words, an exclusive real property action, and the institution thereof gives the court no jurisdiction over chattels. . . . But no relief could possibly be granted in this action as to any property except the last (real estate), for the law contemplated that all the personal property of an estate be distributed before the administration is closed. Indeed, it is only in exceptional cases that the partition of the real estate is provided for, and this too is evidently intended to be effected as a part of the administration, but here the complaint alleges that the estate was finally closed on December 9, 1911, and we find upon referring to the record in that case that subsequent motion to reopen the same were denied; so that the matter of the personal property at least must be considered res judicata (for the final judgment in the administration proceedings must be treated as concluding not merely what was adjudicated, but what might have been). So far, therefore, as the personal property at least is concerned, plaintiffs' only remedy was an appeal from said order." We do not believe that the law is correctly laid down in this quotation. The courts of the Islands have jurisdiction to divide personal property between the common owners thereof and that power is as full and complete as is the power to partition real property. If an actual partition of personal property cannot be made it will be sold under the direction of the court and the proceeds divided among the owners after the necessary expenses have been deducted. The administration of the estate of the decedent consisted simply, so far as the record shows, in the payment of the debts. No division of the property, either real or personal, seems to have been made. On the contrary, the property appears, from the record, to have been turned over to the heirs in bulk. The failure to partition the real property may have been due either to the lack of request to the court by one or more of the heirs to do so, as the court has no authority to make a partition of the real estate without such request; or it may have been due to the fact that all the real property of decedent had been sold under pacto de retro and that, therefore, he was not the owner of any real estate at the time of his death. As to the personal property, it does not appear that it was disposed of in the manner provided by law. (Sec. 753, Code of Civil Procedure.) So far as this action is concerned, however, it is sufficient for us to know that none of the property was actually divided among the heirs in the administration proceeding and that they remain coowners and tenants-in- common thereof at the present time. To maintain an action to partition real or personal property it is necessary to show only that it is owned in common. The order finally closing the administration and discharging the administrator, referred to in the opinion of the trial court, has nothing to do with the division of either the real or the personal property. The heirs have the right to ask the probate court to turn over to them both the real and personal property without division; and where that request is unanimous it is the duty of the court to comply with it, and there is

nothing in section 753 of the Code of Civil Procedure which prohibits it. In such case an order finally settling the estate and discharging the administrator would not bar a subsequent action to require a division of either the real or personal property. If, on the other hand, an order had been made in the administration proceedings dividing the personal or the real property, or both, among the heirs, then it is quite possible that, to a subsequent action brought by one of the heirs for a partition of the real or personal property, or both, there could have been interposed a plea of res judicata based on such order. As the matter now stands, however, there is no ground on which to base such a plea. Moreover, no such plea has been made and no evidence offered to support it. With the finding of the trial court that the proceeds of the life-insurance policy belong exclusively to the defendant as his individual and separate property, we agree. That the proceeds of an insurance policy belong exclusively to the beneficiary and not to the estate of the person whose life was insured, and that such proceeds are the separate and individual property of the beneficiary, and not of the heirs of the person whose life was insured, is the doctrine in America. We believe that the same doctrine obtains in these Islands by virtue of section 428 of the Code of Commerce, which reads: The amount which the underwriter must deliver to the person insured, in fulfillment of the contract, shall be the property of the latter, even against the claims of the legitimate heirs or creditors of any kind whatsoever of the person who effected the insurance in favor of the former. It is claimed by the attorney for the plaintiffs that the section just quoted is subordinate to the provisions of the Civil Code as found in article 1035. This article reads: An heir by force of law surviving with others of the same character to a succession must bring into the hereditary estate the property or securities he may have received from the deceased during the life of the same, by way of dowry, gift, or for any good consideration, in order to compute it in fixing the legal portions and in the account of the division. Counsel also claim that the proceeds of the insurance policy were a donation or gift made by the father during his lifetime to the defendant and that, as such, its ultimate destination is determined by those provisions of the Civil Code which relate to donations, especially article 819. This article provides that "gifts made to children which are not betterments shall be considered as part of their legal portion." We cannot agree with these contentions. The contract of life insurance is a special contract and the destination of the proceeds thereof is determined by special laws which deal exclusively with that subject. The Civil Code has no provisions which relate directly and specifically to life- insurance contracts or to the destination of life insurance proceeds. That subject is regulated exclusively by the Code of Commerce which provides for the terms of the contract, the relations of the parties and the destination of the proceeds of the policy. The proceeds of the life-insurance policy being the exclusive property of the defendant and he having used a portion thereof in the repurchase of the real estate sold by the decedent prior to his death with right to repurchase, and such repurchase having been made and the conveyance taken in the names of all of the heirs instead of the defendant alone, plaintiffs claim that the property belongs to the heirs in common and not to the defendant alone. We are not inclined to agree with this contention unless the fact appear or be shown that the defendant acted as he did with the intention that the other heirs should enjoy with him the ownership of the estate in other words, that he proposed, in effect, to make a gift of the real estate to the other heirs. If it is established by the evidence that that was his intention and that the real estate was delivered to the

plaintiffs with that understanding, then it is probable that their contention is correct and that they are entitled to share equally with the defendant therein. If, however, it appears from the evidence in the case that the conveyances were taken in the name of the plaintiffs without his knowledge or consent, or that it was not his intention to make a gift to them of the real estate, then it belongs to him. If that facts are as stated, he has two remedies. The one is to compel the plaintiffs to reconvey to him and the other is to let the title stand with them and to recover from them the sum he paid on their behalf. For the complete and proper determination of the questions at issue in this case, we are of the opinion that the cause should be returned to the trial court with instructions to permit the parties to frame such issues as will permit the settlement of all the questions involved and to introduce such evidence as may be necessary for the full determination of the issues framed. Upon such issues and evidence taken thereunder the court will decide the questions involved according to the evidence, subordinating his conclusions of law to the rules laid down in this opinion. We do not wish to be understood as having decided in this opinion any question of fact which will arise on the trial and be there in controversy. The trial court is left free to find the facts as the evidence requires. To the facts as so found he will apply the law as herein laid down. The judgment appealed from is set aside and the cause returned to the Court of First Instance whence it came for the purpose hereinabove stated. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., and Carson, J., concur. Torres, J., concurs in the result. G.R. No. L-34583 October 22, 1931

THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, administrator of the estate of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUAN POSADAS, JR., Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee. Araneta, De Joya, Zaragoza and Araneta for appellant. Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

VILLA-REAL, J.: The Bank of the Philippine Islands, as administrator of the estate of the deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, has appealed to this court from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila absolving the defendant Juan Posadas, Jr., Collector of Internal Revenue, from the complaint filed against him by said plaintiff bank, and dismissing the complaint with costs. The appellant has assigned the following alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its judgment, to wit: 1. The lower court erred in holding that the testimony of Mrs. Schuetze was inefficient to established the domicile of her husband.

2. The lower court erred in holding that under section 1536 of the Administrative Code the tax imposed by the defendant is lawful and valid. 3. The lower court erred in not holding that one-half () of the proceeds of the policy in question is community property and that therefore no inheritance tax can be levied, at least on one-half () of the said proceeds. 4. The lower court erred in not declaring that it would be unconstitutional to impose an inheritance tax upon the insurance policy here in question as it would be a taking of property without due process of law. The present complaint seeks to recover from the defendant Juan Posadas, Jr., Collector of Internal Revenue, the amount of P1,209 paid by the plaintiff under protest, in its capacity of administrator of the estate of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, as inheritance tax upon the sum of P20,150, which is the amount of an insurance policy on the deceased's life, wherein his own estate was named the beneficiary. At the hearing, in addition to documentary and parol evidence, both parties submitted the following agreed statement of facts of the court for consideration: It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties in the above-entitled action through their respective undersigned attorneys: 1. That the plaintiff, Rosario Gelano Vda. de Schuetze, window of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, is of legal age, a native of Manila, Philippine Islands, and is and was at all times hereinafter mentioned a resident of Germany, and at the time of the death of her husband, the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, she was actually residing and living in Germany; 2. That the Bank of the Philippine Islands, is and was at all times hereinafter mentioned a banking institution duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippine Islands; 3. That on or about August 23, 1928, the herein plaintiff before notary public Salvador Zaragoza, drew a general power appointing the above-mentioned Bank of the Philippine Islands as her attorney-in-fact, and among the powers conferred to said attorney-in-fact was the power to represent her in all legal actions instituted by or against her; 4. That the defendant, of legal age, is and at all times hereinafter mentioned the duly appointed Collector of Internal Revenue with offices at Manila, Philippine Islands; 5. That the deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze came to the Philippine Islands for the first time of March 31, 1890, and worked in the several German firms as a mere employee and that from the year 1903 until the year 1918 he was partner in the business of Alfredo Roensch; 6. That from 1903 to 1922 the said Adolphe Oscar Schuetze was in the habit of making various trips to Europe; 7. That on December 3, 1927, the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze coming from Java, and with the intention of going to Bremen, landed in the Philippine Islands where he met his death on February 2, 1928;

8. That on March 31, 1926, the said Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, while in Germany, executed a will, in accordance with its law, wherein plaintiff was named his universal heir; 9. That the Bank of the Philippine Islands by order of the Court of First Instance of Manila under date of May 24, 1928, was appointed administrator of the estate of the deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze; 10. That, according to the testamentary proceedings instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila, civil case No. 33089, the deceased at the time of his death was possessed of not only real property situated in the Philippine Islands, but also personal property consisting of shares of stock in nineteen (19) domestic corporations; 11. That the fair market value of all the property in the Philippine Islands left by the deceased at the time of his death in accordance with the inventory submitted to the Court of First Instance of Manila, civil case No. 33089, was P217,560.38; 12. That the Bank of the Philippine Islands, as administrator of the estate of the deceased rendered its final account on June 19, 1929, and that said estate was closed on July 16, 1929; 13. That among the personal property of the deceased was found life-insurance policy No. 194538 issued at Manila, Philippine Islands, on January 14, 1913, for the sum of $10,000 by the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Manila branch, a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Canada, and duly authorized to transact business in the Philippine Islands; 14. That in the insurance policy the estate of the said Adolphe Oscar Schuetze was named the beneficiary without any qualification whatsoever; 15. That for five consecutive years, the deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze paid the premiums of said policy to the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Manila branch; 16. That on or about the year 1918, the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Manila branch, transferred said policy to the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, London branch; 17. That due to said transfer the said Adolphe Oscar Schuetze from 1918 to the time of his death paid the premiums of said policy to the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, London Branch; 18. That the sole and only heir of the deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze is his widow, the plaintiff herein; 19. That at the time of the death of the deceased and at all times thereafter including the date when the said insurance policy was paid, the insurance policy was not in the hands or possession of the Manila office of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, nor in the possession of the herein plaintiff, nor in the possession of her attorney-in-fact the Bank of the Philippine Islands, but the same was in the hands of the Head Office of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, at Montreal, Canada; 20. That on July 13, 1928, the Bank of the Philippine Islands as administrator of the decedent's estate received from the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Manila branch, the sum of

P20,150 representing the proceeds of the insurance policy, as shown in the statement of income and expenses of the estate of the deceased submitted on June 18, 1929, by the administrator to the Court of First Instance of Manila, civil case No. 33089; 21. That the Bank of the Philippine Islands delivered to the plaintiff herein the said sum of P20,150; 22. That the herein defendant on or about July 5, 1929, imposed an inheritance tax upon the transmission of the proceeds of the policy in question in the sum of P20,150 from the estate of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze to the sole heir of the deceased, or the plaintiff herein, which inheritance tax amounted to the sum of P1,209; 23. That the Bank of the Philippine Islands as administrator of the decedent's estate and as attorney-in-fact of the herein plaintiff, having been demanded by the herein defendant to pay inheritance tax amounting to the sum of P1,209, paid to the defendant under protest the abovementioned sum; 24. That notwithstanding the various demands made by plaintiff to the defendant, said defendant has refused and refuses to refund to plaintiff the above mentioned sum of P1,209; 25. That plaintiff reserves the right to adduce evidence as regards the domicile of the deceased, and so the defendant, the right to present rebuttal evidence; 26. That both plaintiff and defendant submit this stipulation of facts without prejudice to their right to introduce such evidence, on points not covered by the agreement, which they may deem proper and necessary to support their respective contentions. In as much as one of the question raised in the appeal is whether an insurance policy on said Adolphe Oscar Schuetze's life was, by reason of its ownership, subject to the inheritance tax, it would be well to decide first whether the amount thereof is paraphernal or community property. According to the foregoing agreed statement of facts, the estate of Adolphe Oscar Schuetze is the sole beneficiary named in the life-insurance policy for $10,000, issued by the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada on January 14, 1913. During the following five years the insured paid the premiums at the Manila branch of the company, and in 1918 the policy was transferred to the London branch. The record shows that the deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze married the plaintiff-appellant Rosario Gelano on January 16, 1914. With the exception of the premium for the first year covering the period from January 14, 1913 to January 14, 1914, all the money used for paying the premiums, i. e., from the second year, or January 16, 1914, or when the deceased Adolphe Oscar Schuetze married the plaintiff-appellant Rosario Gelano, until his death on February 2, 1929, is conjugal property inasmuch as it does not appear to have exclusively belonged to him or to his wife (art. 1407, Civil Code). As the sum of P20,150 here in controversy is a product of such premium it must also be deemed community property, because it was acquired for a valuable consideration, during said Adolphe Oscar Schuetze's marriage with Rosario Gelano at the expense of the common fund (art. 1401, No. 1, Civil Code), except for the small part corresponding to the first premium paid with the deceased's own money.

In his Commentaries on the Civil Code, volume 9, page 589, second edition, Manresa treats of life insurance in the following terms, to wit: The amount of the policy represents the premiums to be paid, and the right to it arises the moment the contract is perfected, for at the moment the power of disposing of it may be exercised, and if death occurs payment may be demanded. It is therefore something acquired for a valuable consideration during the marriage, though the period of its fulfillment, depend upon the death of one of the spouses, which terminates the partnership. So considered, the question may be said to be decided by articles 1396 and 1401: if the premiums are paid with the exclusive property of husband or wife, the policy belongs to the owner; if with conjugal property, or if the money cannot be proved as coming from one or the other of the spouses, the policy is community property. The Supreme Court of Texas, United States, in the case of Martin vs. Moran (11 Tex. Civ. A., 509) laid down the following doctrine: COMMUNITY PROPERTY LIFE INSURANCE POLICY. A husband took out an endowment life insurance policy on his life, payable "as directed by will." He paid the premiums thereon out of community funds, and by his will made the proceeds of the policy payable to his own estate. Held, that the proceeds were community estate, one-half of which belonged to the wife. In In re Stan's Estate, Myr. Prob. (Cal.), 5, the Supreme Court of California laid down the following doctrine: A testator, after marriage, took out an insurance policy, on which he paid the premiums from his salary. Held that the insurance money was community property, to one-half of which, the wife was entitled as survivor. In In re Webb's Estate, Myr. Prob. (Cal.), 93, the same court laid down the following doctrine: A decedent paid the first third of the amount of the premiums on his life-insurance policy out of his earnings before marriage, and the remainder from his earnings received after marriage. Held, that one-third of the policy belonged to his separate estate, and the remainder to the community property. Thus both according to our Civil Code and to the ruling of those North American States where the Spanish Civil Code once governed, the proceeds of a life-insurance policy whereon the premiums were paid with conjugal money, belong to the conjugal partnership. The appellee alleges that it is a fundamental principle that a life-insurance policy belongs exclusively to the beneficiary upon the death of the person insured, and that in the present case, as the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze named his own estate as the sole beneficiary of the insurance on his life, upon his death the latter became the sole owner of the proceeds, which therefore became subject to the inheritance tax, citing Del Val vs. Del Val (29 Phil., 534), where the doctrine was laid down that an heir appointed beneficiary to a life-insurance policy taken out by the deceased, becomes the absolute owner of the proceeds of such policy upon the death of the insured. The estate of a deceased person cannot be placed on the same footing as an individual heir. The proceeds of a life-insurance policy payable to the estate of the insured passed to the executor or

administrator of such estate, and forms part of its assets (37 Corpus Juris, 565, sec. 322); whereas the proceeds of a life-insurance policy payable to an heir of the insured as beneficiary belongs exclusively to said heir and does not form part of the deceased's estate subject to administrator. (Del Val vs. Del Val, supra; 37 Corpus Juris, 566, sec. 323, and articles 419 and 428 of the Code of Commerce.) Just as an individual beneficiary of a life-insurance policy taken out by a married person becomes the exclusive owner of the proceeds upon the death of the insured even if the premiums were paid by the conjugal partnership, so, it is argued, where the beneficiary named is the estate of the deceased whose life is insured, the proceeds of the policy become a part of said estate upon the death of the insured even if the premiums have been paid with conjugal funds. In a conjugal partnership the husband is the manager, empowered to alienate the partnership property without the wife's consent (art. 1413, Civil Code), a third person, therefore, named beneficiary in a life-insurance policy becomes the absolute owner of its proceeds upon the death of the insured even if the premiums should have been paid with money belonging to the community property. When a married man has his life insured and names his own estate after death, beneficiary, he makes no alienation of the proceeds of conjugal funds to a third person, but appropriates them himself, adding them to the assets of his estate, in contravention of the provisions of article 1401, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code cited above, which provides that "To the conjugal partnership belongs" (1) Property acquired for a valuable consideration during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition is made for the partnership or for one of the spouses only." Furthermore, such appropriation is a fraud practised upon the wife, which cannot be allowed to prejudice her, according to article 1413, paragraph 2, of said Code. Although the husband is the manager of the conjugal partnership, he cannot of his own free will convert the partnership property into his own exclusive property. As all the premiums on the life-insurance policy taken out by the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, were paid out of the conjugal funds, with the exceptions of the first, the proceeds of the policy, excluding the proportional part corresponding to the first premium, constitute community property, notwithstanding the fact that the policy was made payable to the deceased's estate, so that one-half of said proceeds belongs to the estate, and the other half to the deceased's widow, the plaintiff-appellant Rosario Gelano Vda. de Schuetze. The second point to decide in this appeal is whether the Collector of Internal Revenue has authority, under the law, to collect the inheritance tax upon one-half of the life-insurance policy taken out by the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, which belongs to him and is made payable to his estate. According to the agreed statement of facts mentioned above, the plaintiff-appellant, the Bank of the Philippine Islands, was appointed administrator of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze's testamentary estate by an order dated March 24, 1928, entered by the Court of First Instance of Manila. On July 13, 1928, the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, whose main office is in Montreal, Canada, paid Rosario Gelano Vda. de Schuetze upon her arrival at Manila, the sum of P20,150, which was the amount of the insurance policy on the life of said deceased, payable to the latter's estate. On the same date Rosario Gelano Vda. de Schuetze delivered the money to said Bank of the Philippine Islands, as administrator of the deceased's estate, which entered it in the inventory of the testamentary estate, and then returned the money to said widow. Section 1536 of the Administrative Code, as amended by section 10 of Act No. 2835 and section 1 of Act No. 3031, contains the following relevant provision:

SEC. 1536. Conditions and rate of taxation. Every transmission by virtue of inheritance, devise, bequest, gift mortis causa or advance in anticipation of inheritance, devise, or bequest of real property located in the Philippine Islands and real rights in such property; of any franchise which must be exercised in the Philippine Islands; of any shares, obligations, or bonds issued by any corporation or sociedad anonima organized or constituted in the Philippine Islands in accordance with its laws; of any shares or rights in any partnership, business or industry established in the Philippine Islands or of any personal property located in the Philippine Islands shall be subject to the following tax: xxx xxx xxx

In as much as the proceeds of the insurance policy on the life of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze were paid to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, as administrator of the deceased's estate, for management and partition, and as such proceeds were turned over to the sole and universal testamentary heiress Rosario Gelano Vda. de Schuetze, the plaintiff-appellant, here in Manila, the situs of said proceeds is the Philippine Islands. In his work "The Law of Taxation," Cooley enunciates the general rule governing the levying of taxes upon tangible personal property, in the following words: GENERAL RULE. The suits of tangible personal property, for purposes of taxation may be where the owner is domiciled but is not necessarily so. Unlike intangible personal property, it may acquire a taxation situs in a state other than the one where the owner is domiciled, merely because it is located there. Its taxable situs is where it is more or less permanently located, regardless of the domicile of the owner. It is well settled that the state where it is more or less permanently located has the power to tax it although the owner resides out of the state, regardless of whether it has been taxed for the same period at the domicile of the owner, provided there is statutory authority for taxing such property. It is equally well settled that the state where the owner is domiciled has no power to tax it where the property has acquired an actual situs in another state by reason of its more or less permanent location in that state. ... (2 Cooley, The Law of Taxation, 4th ed., p. 975, par. 451.) With reference to the meaning of the words "permanent" and "in transit," he has the following to say: PERMANENCY OF LOCATION; PROPERTY IN TRANSIT. In order to acquire a situs in a state or taxing district so as to be taxable in the state or district regardless of the domicile of the owner and not taxable in another state or district at the domicile of the owner, tangible personal property must be more or less permanently located in the state or district. In other words, the situs of tangible personal property is where it is more or less permanently located rather than where it is merely in transit or temporarily and for no considerable length of time. If tangible personal property is more or less permanently located in a state other than the one where the owner is domiciled, it is not taxable in the latter state but is taxable in the state where it is located. If tangible personal property belonging to one domiciled in one state is in another state merely in transitu or for a short time, it is taxable in the former state, and is not taxable in the state where it is for the time being. . . . . Property merely in transit through a state ordinarily is not taxable there. Transit begins when an article is committed to a carrier for transportation to the state of its destination, or started on its ultimate passage. Transit ends when the goods arrive at their destination. But intermediate

these points questions may arise as to when a temporary stop in transit is such as to make the property taxable at the place of stoppage. Whether the property is taxable in such a case usually depends on the length of time and the purpose of the interruption of transit. . . . . . . . It has been held that property of a construction company, used in construction of a railroad, acquires a situs at the place where used for an indefinite period. So tangible personal property in the state for the purpose of undergoing a partial finishing process is not to be regarded as in the course of transit nor as in the state for a mere temporary purpose. (2 Cooley, The Law of Taxation, 4th ed., pp. 982, 983 and 988, par. 452.) If the proceeds of the life-insurance policy taken out by the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze and made payable to his estate, were delivered to the Bank of the Philippine Islands for administration and distribution, they were not in transit but were more or less permanently located in the Philippine Islands, according to the foregoing rules. If this be so, half of the proceeds which is community property, belongs to the estate of the deceased and is subject to the inheritance tax, in accordance with the legal provision quoted above, irrespective of whether or not the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze was domiciled in the Philippine Islands at the time of his death. By virtue of the foregoing, we are of opinion and so hold: (1) That the proceeds of a life-insurance policy payable to the insured's estate, on which the premiums were paid by the conjugal partnership, constitute community property, and belong one-half to the husband and the other half to the wife, exclusively; (2) that if the premiums were paid partly with paraphernal and partly conjugal funds, the proceeds are likewise in like proportion paraphernal in part and conjugal in part; and (3) that the proceeds of a life-insurance policy payable to the insured's estate as the beneficiary, if delivered to the testamentary administrator of the former as part of the assets of said estate under probate administration, are subject to the inheritance tax according to the law on the matter, if they belong to the assured exclusively, and it is immaterial that the insured was domiciled in these Islands or outside.1awphil.net Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the defendant is ordered to return to the plaintiff the one-half of the tax collected upon the amount of P20,150, being the proceeds of the insurance policy on the life of the late Adolphe Oscar Schuetze, after deducting the proportional part corresponding to the first premium, without special pronouncement of costs. So ordered. Avancea, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, and Ostrand, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-44059 October 28, 1977 THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARPONIA T. EBRADO and PASCUALA VDA. DE EBRADO, defendants-appellants.

MARTIN, J.: This is a novel question in insurance law: Can a common-law wife named as beneficiary in the life insurance policy of a legally married man claim the proceeds thereof in case of death of the latter?

On September 1, 1968, Buenaventura Cristor Ebrado was issued by The Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Policy No. 009929 on a whole-life for P5,882.00 with a, rider for Accidental Death for the same amount Buenaventura C. Ebrado designated T. Ebrado as the revocable beneficiary in his policy. He to her as his wife. On October 21, 1969, Buenaventura C. Ebrado died as a result of an t when he was hit by a failing branch of a tree. As the policy was in force, The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. liable to pay the coverage in the total amount of P11,745.73, representing the face value of the policy in the amount of P5,882.00 plus the additional benefits for accidental death also in the amount of P5,882.00 and the refund of P18.00 paid for the premium due November, 1969, minus the unpaid premiums and interest thereon due for January and February, 1969, in the sum of P36.27. Carponia T. Ebrado filed with the insurer a claim for the proceeds of the Policy as the designated beneficiary therein, although she admits that she and the insured Buenaventura C. Ebrado were merely living as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Pascuala Vda. de Ebrado also filed her claim as the widow of the deceased insured. She asserts that she is the one entitled to the insurance proceeds, not the common-law wife, Carponia T. Ebrado. In doubt as to whom the insurance proceeds shall be paid, the insurer, The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. commenced an action for Interpleader before the Court of First Instance of Rizal on April 29, 1970. After the issues have been joined, a pre-trial conference was held on July 8, 1972, after which, a pre-trial order was entered reading as follows: +.wph!1 During the pre-trial conference, the parties manifested to the court. that there is no possibility of amicable settlement. Hence, the Court proceeded to have the parties submit their evidence for the purpose of the pre-trial and make admissions for the purpose of pretrial. During this conference, parties Carponia T. Ebrado and Pascuala Ebrado agreed and stipulated: 1) that the deceased Buenaventura Ebrado was married to Pascuala Ebrado with whom she has six (legitimate) namely; Hernando, Cresencio, Elsa, Erlinda, Felizardo and Helen, all surnamed Ebrado; 2) that during the lifetime of the deceased, he was insured with Insular Life Assurance Co. Under Policy No. 009929 whole life plan, dated September 1, 1968 for the sum of P5,882.00 with the rider for accidental death benefit as evidenced by Exhibits A for plaintiffs and Exhibit 1 for the defendant Pascuala and Exhibit 7 for Carponia Ebrado; 3) that during the lifetime of Buenaventura Ebrado, he was living with his common-wife, Carponia Ebrado, with whom she had 2 children although he was not legally separated from his legal wife; 4) that Buenaventura in accident on October 21, 1969 as evidenced by the death Exhibit 3 and affidavit of the police report of his death Exhibit 5; 5) that complainant Carponia Ebrado filed claim with the Insular Life Assurance Co. which was contested by Pascuala Ebrado who also filed claim for the proceeds of said policy 6) that in view ofthe adverse claims the insurance company filed this action against the two herein claimants Carponia and Pascuala Ebrado; 7) that there is now due from the Insular Life Assurance Co. as proceeds of the policy P11,745.73; 8) that the beneficiary designated by the insured in the policy is Carponia Ebrado and the insured made reservation to change the beneficiary but although the insured made the option to change the beneficiary, same was never changed up to the time of his death and the wife did not have any opportunity to write the company that there was reservation to change the designation of the parties agreed that a

decision be rendered based on and stipulation of facts as to who among the two claimants is entitled to the policy. Upon motion of the parties, they are given ten (10) days to file their simultaneous memoranda from the receipt of this order. SO ORDERED. On September 25, 1972, the trial court rendered judgment declaring among others, Carponia T. Ebrado disqualified from becoming beneficiary of the insured Buenaventura Cristor Ebrado and directing the payment of the insurance proceeds to the estate of the deceased insured. The trial court held: +.wph!1 It is patent from the last paragraph of Art. 739 of the Civil Code that a criminal conviction for adultery or concubinage is not essential in order to establish the disqualification mentioned therein. Neither is it also necessary that a finding of such guilt or commission of those acts be made in a separate independent action brought for the purpose. The guilt of the donee (beneficiary) may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same proceeding (the action brought to declare the nullity of the donation). It is, however, essential that such adultery or concubinage exists at the time defendant Carponia T. Ebrado was made beneficiary in the policy in question for the disqualification and incapacity to exist and that it is only necessary that such fact be established by preponderance of evidence in the trial. Since it is agreed in their stipulation above-quoted that the deceased insured and defendant Carponia T. Ebrado were living together as husband and wife without being legally married and that the marriage of the insured with the other defendant Pascuala Vda. de Ebrado was valid and still existing at the time the insurance in question was purchased there is no question that defendant Carponia T. Ebrado is disqualified from becoming the beneficiary of the policy in question and as such she is not entitled to the proceeds of the insurance upon the death of the insured. From this judgment, Carponia T. Ebrado appealed to the Court of Appeals, but on July 11, 1976, the Appellate Court certified the case to Us as involving only questions of law. We affirm the judgment of the lower court. 1. It is quite unfortunate that the Insurance Act (RA 2327, as amended) or even the new Insurance Code (PD No. 612, as amended) does not contain any specific provision grossly resolutory of the prime question at hand. Section 50 of the Insurance Act which provides that "(t)he insurance shag be applied exclusively to the proper interest of the person in whose name it is made" 1 cannot be validly seized upon to hold that the mm includes the beneficiary. The word "interest" highly suggests that the provision refers only to the "insured" and not to the beneficiary, since a contract of insurance is personal in character. 2 Otherwise, the prohibitory laws against illicit relationships especially on property and descent will be rendered nugatory, as the same could easily be circumvented by modes of insurance. Rather, the general rules of civil law should be applied to resolve this void in the Insurance Law. Article 2011 of the New Civil Code states: "The contract of insurance is governed by special laws. Matters not expressly provided for in such special laws shall be regulated by this Code." When not otherwise specifically provided for by the Insurance Law, the contract of life insurance is governed by the general rules of the civil law regulating contracts. 3 And under Article 2012 of the same Code, "any person who is forbidden from

receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be named beneficiary of a fife insurance policy by the person who cannot make a donation to him. 4 Common-law spouses are, definitely, barred from receiving donations from each other. Article 739 of the new Civil Code provides: +.wph!1 The following donations shall be void: 1. Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of donation; Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense, in consideration thereof; 3. Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants or ascendants by reason of his office. In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of the donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action. 2. In essence, a life insurance policy is no different from a civil donation insofar as the beneficiary is concerned. Both are founded upon the same consideration: liberality. A beneficiary is like a donee, because from the premiums of the policy which the insured pays out of liberality, the beneficiary will receive the proceeds or profits of said insurance. As a consequence, the proscription in Article 739 of the new Civil Code should equally operate in life insurance contracts. The mandate of Article 2012 cannot be laid aside: any person who cannot receive a donation cannot be named as beneficiary in the life insurance policy of the person who cannot make the donation. 5 Under American law, a policy of life insurance is considered as a testament and in construing it, the courts will, so far as possible treat it as a will and determine the effect of a clause designating the beneficiary by rules under which wins are interpreted. 6 3. Policy considerations and dictates of morality rightly justify the institution of a barrier between common law spouses in record to Property relations since such hip ultimately encroaches upon the nuptial and filial rights of the legitimate family There is every reason to hold that the bar in donations between legitimate spouses and those between illegitimate ones should be enforced in life insurance policies since the same are based on similar consideration As above pointed out, a beneficiary in a fife insurance policy is no different from a donee. Both are recipients of pure beneficence. So long as manage remains the threshold of family laws, reason and morality dictate that the impediments imposed upon married couple should likewise be imposed upon extra-marital relationship. If legitimate relationship is circumscribed by these legal disabilities, with more reason should an illicit relationship be restricted by these disabilities. Thus, in Matabuena v. Cervantes, 7 this Court, through Justice Fernando, said: +.wph!1 If the policy of the law is, in the language of the opinion of the then Justice J.B.L. Reyes of that court (Court of Appeals), 'to prohibit donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of and undue and improper pressure and influence upon the donor, a prejudice deeply rooted in our ancient law;" por-que no se enganen desponjandose el uno al otro por amor que han de consuno' (According to) the Partidas (Part IV, Tit. XI, LAW IV), reiterating the rationale 'No Mutuato amore invicem spoliarentur' the Pandects (Bk, 24, Titl. 1, De donat, inter virum et uxorem); then there is very reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together as husband and wife without the benefit of nuptials. For it is not to be doubted that assent to such irregular connection for thirty years bespeaks greater influence of one party over the

other, so that the danger that the law seeks to avoid is correspondingly increased. Moreover, as already pointed out by Ulpian (in his lib. 32 ad Sabinum, fr. 1), 'it would not be just that such donations should subsist, lest the condition 6f those who incurred guilt should turn out to be better.' So long as marriage remains the cornerstone of our family law, reason and morality alike demand that the disabilities attached to marriage should likewise attach to concubinage. It is hardly necessary to add that even in the absence of the above pronouncement, any other conclusion cannot stand the test of scrutiny. It would be to indict the frame of the Civil Code for a failure to apply a laudable rule to a situation which in its essentials cannot be distinguished. Moreover, if it is at all to be differentiated the policy of the law which embodies a deeply rooted notion of what is just and what is right would be nullified if such irregular relationship instead of being visited with disabilities would be attended with benefits. Certainly a legal norm should not be susceptible to such a reproach. If there is every any occasion where the principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of it as what is written, this is it. Otherwise the basic purpose discernible in such codal provision would not be attained. Whatever omission may be apparent in an interpretation purely literal of the language used must be remedied by an adherence to its avowed objective. 4. We do not think that a conviction for adultery or concubinage is exacted before the disabilities mentioned in Article 739 may effectuate. More specifically, with record to the disability on "persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation," Article 739 itself provides: +.wph!1 In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilty of the donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action. The underscored clause neatly conveys that no criminal conviction for the offense is a condition precedent. In fact, it cannot even be from the aforequoted provision that a prosecution is needed. On the contrary, the law plainly states that the guilt of the party may be proved "in the same acting for declaration of nullity of donation. And, it would be sufficient if evidence preponderates upon the guilt of the consort for the offense indicated. The quantum of proof in criminal cases is not demanded. In the caw before Us, the requisite proof of common-law relationship between the insured and the beneficiary has been conveniently supplied by the stipulations between the parties in the pre-trial conference of the case. It case agreed upon and stipulated therein that the deceased insured Buenaventura C. Ebrado was married to Pascuala Ebrado with whom she has six legitimate children; that during his lifetime, the deceased insured was living with his common-law wife, Carponia Ebrado, with whom he has two children. These stipulations are nothing less than judicial admissions which, as a consequence, no longer require proof and cannot be contradicted. 8 A fortiori, on the basis of these admissions, a judgment may be validly rendered without going through the rigors of a trial for the sole purpose of proving the illicit liaison between the insured and the beneficiary. In fact, in that pretrial, the parties even agreed "that a decision be rendered based on this agreement and stipulation of facts as to who among the two claimants is entitled to the policy." ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed. Carponia T. Ebrado is hereby declared disqualified to be the beneficiary of the late Buenaventura C. Ebrado in his life insurance

policy. As a consequence, the proceeds of the policy are hereby held payable to the estate of the deceased insured. Costs against Carponia T. Ebrado. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-2910 June 29, 1951

THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. BIBIANO L. MEER, in the capacity as Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee. Camus, Zavalla, Bautista and Nueves for appellant. First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon, Office of the Solicitor Felix V. Makasiar and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro for appellee. BENGZON, J.: Appeal from a decision of the Honorable Buenaventura Ocampo, then judge of the Manila court of first instance, dismissing plaintiff's complaint to recover money paid under protest for taxes. The case was submitted upon a stipulation of facts, supplemented by documentary evidence. The plaintiff, the Manufacturer Life Insurance Company in a corporation duly organized in Canada with head office at Toronto. It is duly registered and licensed to engage in life insurance business in the Philippines, and maintains a branch office in Manila. It was engaged in such business in the Philippines for more than five years before and including the year 1941. But due to the exigencies of the war it closed the branch office at Manila during 1942 up to September 1945. In the course of its operations before the war, plaintiff issued a number of life insurance policies in the Philippines containing stipulations referred to as non-forfeiture clauses, as follows: '8. Automatic Premium Loan. This Policy shall not lapse for non-payment of any premium after it has been three full years in force, if, at the due date of such premium, the Cash Value of this Policy and of any bonus additions and dividends left on accumulation (after deducting any indebtedness to the Company and the interest accrued thereon) shall exceed the amount of said premium. In which event the company will, without further request, treat the premium then due as paid, and the amount of such premium, with interest from its actual due date at six per cent per annum, compounded yearly, and one per cent, compounded yearly, for expenses, shall be a first lien on this Policy in the Company's favour in priority to the claim of any assignee or any other person. The accumulated lien may at any time, while the Policy is in force, be paid in whole or in part. "When the premium falls due and is not paid in cash within the month's grace, if the Cash Value of this policy and of any bonus addition and dividends left on accumulation (after deducting any accumulated indebtedness) be less than the premium then due, the Company will, without further requests, continue this insurance in force for a period .. . . "10. Cash and Paid-Up Insurance Values. At the end of the third policy year or thereafter, upon the legal surrender of this Policy to the Company while there is no default in premium payments or within two months after the due date of the premium in default, the Company will (1) grant a cash value as specified in Column (A) increased by the cash value of any bonus

additions and dividends left on accumulation, which have been alloted to this Policy, less all indebtedness to the Company on this Policy on the date of such surrender, or (2) endorse this Policy as a Non-Participating Paid-up Policy for the amount as specified in Column (B) of the Table of Guaranteed Values . . .. "11. Extended Insurance. After the premiums for three or more full years have been paid hereunder in cash, if any subsequent premium is not paid when due, and there is no indebtness to the Company, on the written request of the Insured . . .. From January 1, 1942 to December 31, 1946 for failure of the insured under the above policies to pay the corresponding premiums for one or more years, the plaintiff's head office of Toronto, applied the provision of the automatic premium loan clauses; and the net amount of premiums so advanced or loaned totalled P1,069,254.98. On this sum the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue assessed P17,917.12 which plaintiff paid supra protest . The assessment was made pursuant to section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code as amended. which partly provides: SEC. 255. Taxes on insurance premiums. There shall be collected from every person, company, or corporation (except purely cooperative companies or associations) doing business of any sort in the Philippines a tax of one per centum of the total premiums collected .. whether such premiums are paid in money, notes credits, or any substitute for money but premiums refunded within six months after payment on account of rejection of risk or returned for other reason to person insured shall not be included in the taxable receipts . . .. It is the plaintiff's contention that when it made premium loans or premium advances, as above stated, by virtue of the non-forfeiture clauses, it did not collect premiums within the meaning of the above sections of the law, and therefore it is not amendable to the tax therein provided. The plaintiff conveniently divides that issue into five minor issues, to wit: (a) Whether or not premium advances made by plaintiff-appellant under the automatic premium loan clause of its policies are "premium collected" by the Company subject to tax; (b) Whether or not, in the application of the automatic premium loan clause of plaintiffappellant's policies, there is "payment in money, notes, credit, or any substitutes for money"; (c) Whether or not the collection of the alleged deficiency premium taxes constitutes double taxation; (d) Whether the making of premium advances, granting for the sake of argument that it amounted to collection of premiums, were done in Toronto, Canada, or in the Philippines; and (e) Whether or not the fact that plaintiff-appellant was not doing business in the Philippines during the period from January 1, 1942 to September 30, 1945, inclusive, exempts it from payment of premium taxes corresponding to said period. These points will be considered in their order. The first two may best taken up together in the light of a practical illustration offered by appellant:

"Suppose that "A" years of age, secures a 20-years endowment policy for P5,000 from plaintiff-appellant Company and pays an annual premium of P250. 'A' pays the first ten yearly premiums amounting to P2,500 and on this amount plaintiff-appellant pays the corresponding taxes under section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Suppose also that the cash value of said policy after the payment of the 10th annual premium amounts to P1,000." When on the eleventh year the annual premium fell due and the insured remitted no money within the months grace, the insurer treated the premium then over due as paid from the cash value, the amount being loan to the policyholder1 who could discharged it at anytime with interest at 6 per cent. The insurance contract, therefore, continued in force for the eleventh year. Under the circumstances described, did the insurer collect the amount of P250 as the annual premium for the eleventh year on the said policy? The plaintiff says no; but the defendant and the lower court say yes. The latter have, in our opinion, the correct view. In effect the Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. loaned to "A" on the eleventh year, the sum of P250 and the latter in turn paid with that sum the annual premium on his policy. The Company therefore collected the premium for the eleventh year. "How could there be such a collection "plaintiff argues "when as a result thereof, insurer becomes a creditor, acquires a lien on the policy and is entitled to collect interest on the amount of the unpaid premiums?". Wittingly, the "premium" and the "loan" have been interchanged in the argument. The insurer "became a creditor" of the loan, but not of the premium that had already been paid. And it is entitled to collect interest on the loan, not on the premium. In other words, "A" paid the premium for the eleventh; but in turn he became a debtor of the company for the sum of P250. This debt he could repay either by later remitting the money to the insurer or by letting the cash value compensate for it. The debt may also be deducted form the amount of the policy should "A" die thereafter during the continuance of the policy. Proceeding along the same line of argument counsel for plaintiff observes "that there is no change, much less an increase, in the amount of the assets of plaintiff-appellant after the application of the automatic premium loan clause. Its assets remain exactly the same after making the advances in question. It being so, there could have been no collection of premium . . .. "We cannot assent to this view, because there was an increase. There was the new credit for the advances made. True, the plaintiff could not sue the insured to enforce that credit. But it has means of satisfaction out of the cash surrender value. Here again it may be urged that if the credit is paid out of the cash surrender value, there were no new funds added to the company's assets. Cash surrender value "as applied to life insurance policy, is the amount of money the company agrees to pay to the holder of the policy if he surrenders it and releases his claims upon it. The more premiums the insured has paid the greater will be the surrender value; but the surrender value is always a lesser sum than the total amount of premiums paid." (Cyclopedia Law Dictionary 3d. ed. 1077.) The cash value or cash surrender value is therefore an amount which the insurance company holds in trust2 for the insured to be delivered to him upon demand. It is therefore a liability of the company to the insured. Now then, when the company's credit for advances is paid out of the cash value or cash surrender value, that value and the company's liability is thereby dismissed pro tanto. Consequently, the net assets of the insurance company increased corresponding; for it is plain mathematics that the decrease of a person's liabilities means a corresponding increase in his net assets.

Nevertheless let us grant for the nonce that the operation of the automatic loan provision contributed no additional cash to the funds of the insurer. Yet it must be admitted that the insurer agreed to consider the premium paid on the strength of the automatic loan. The premium was therefore paid by means of a "note" or "credit" or "other substitute for money" and the taxis due because section 255 above quoted levies taxes according to the total premiums collected by the insurer "whether such premiums are paid in money, notes, credits or any substitutes for money. In connection with the third issue, appellant refers to its example about "A" who failed to pay the premium on the eleventh year and the insurer advanced P250 from the cash value. Then it reasons out that "if the amount P250 is deducted from the cash value of P1,000 of the policy, then taxing this P250 anew as premium collected, as was done in the present case, will amount to double taxation since taxes had already been collected on the cash value of P1,000 as part of the P2,500 collected as premiums for the first ten years." The trouble with the argument is that it assumes all advances are necessarily repaid from the cash value. That is true in some cases. In others the insured subsequently remits the money to repay the advance and to keep unimpaired the cash reserve of his policy. As to a matter of fact of the total amount advanced (P1,069,254.998) P158,666.63 had actually been repaid at the time of assessment notice. Besides, the premiums paid and on which taxes had already been collected, were those for the ten years. The tax demanded is on the premium for the eleventh year. In any event there is no constitutional prohibition against double taxation. On the fourth issue the appellant takes the position that as advances of premiums were made in Toronto, such premiums are deemed to have been paid there not in the Philippines and therefore those payments are not subject to local taxation. The thesis overlooks the actual fact that the loans are made to policyholders in the Philippines, who in turn pay therewith the premium to the insurer thru the Manila branch. Approval of appellants position will enable foreign insurers to evade the tax by contriving to require that premium payments shall be made at their head offices. What is important, the law does not contemplate premiums collected in the Philippines. It is enough that the insurer is doing insurance business in the Philippines, irrespective of the place of its organization or establishment. This brings forth the appellant's last contention that it was "engaged in business" in the Philippines during the years 1942 to September 1945, and that as section 255 applies only to companies "doing insurance business in the Philippines" this tax was improperly demanded. It is our opinion that although during those years the appellant was not open for new business because its branch office was closed, still it was practically and legally, operating in this country by collecting premiums on its outstanding policies, incurring the risks and/or enjoying the benefits consequent thereto, without having previously taken any steps indicating withdrawal in good faith field of economic activity3. As a matter of fact, in objecting to the payment of the tax, plaintiff-appellant never insisted, before the Bureau of Internal Revenue, that it was not engaged in business in this country during those years. Wherefore, finding no prejudicial error in the appealed decisions, we hereby affirm it with costs. G.R. No. L-109937 March 21, 1994 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the ESTATE OF THE LATE JUAN B. DANS, represented by

CANDIDA G. DANS, and the DBP MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE POOL, respondents. Office of the Legal Counsel for petitioner. Reyes, Santayana, Molo & Alegre for DBP Mortgage Redemption Insurance Pool.

QUIASON, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV No. 26434 and its resolution denying reconsideration thereof. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. I In May 1987, Juan B. Dans, together with his wife Candida, his son and daughter-in-law, applied for a loan of P500,000.00 with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Basilan Branch. As the principal mortgagor, Dans, then 76 years of age, was advised by DBP to obtain a mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) with the DBP Mortgage Redemption Insurance Pool (DBP MRI Pool). A loan, in the reduced amount of P300,000.00, was approved by DBP on August 4, 1987 and released on August 11, 1987. From the proceeds of the loan, DBP deducted the amount of P1,476.00 as payment for the MRI premium. On August 15, 1987, Dans accomplished and submitted the "MRI Application for Insurance" and the "Health Statement for DBP MRI Pool." On August 20, 1987, the MRI premium of Dans, less the DBP service fee of 10 percent, was credited by DBP to the savings account of the DBP MRI Pool. Accordingly, the DBP MRI Pool was advised of the credit. On September 3, 1987, Dans died of cardiac arrest. The DBP, upon notice, relayed this information to the DBP MRI Pool. On September 23, 1987, the DBP MRI Pool notified DBP that Dans was not eligible for MRI coverage, being over the acceptance age limit of 60 years at the time of application. On October 21, 1987, DBP apprised Candida Dans of the disapproval of her late husband's MRI application. The DBP offered to refund the premium of P1,476.00 which the deceased had paid, but Candida Dans refused to accept the same, demanding payment of the face value of the MRI or an amount equivalent to the loan. She, likewise, refused to accept an ex gratia settlement of P30,000.00, which the DBP later offered. On February 10, 1989, respondent Estate, through Candida Dans as administratrix, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Basilan, against DBP and the insurance pool for "Collection of Sum of Money with Damages." Respondent Estate alleged that Dans became insured by the DBP MRI Pool when DBP, with full knowledge of Dans' age at the time of application, required him to apply for MRI, and later collected the insurance premium thereon. Respondent Estate therefore prayed: (1) that the sum

of P139,500.00, which it paid under protest for the loan, be reimbursed; (2) that the mortgage debt of the deceased be declared fully paid; and (3) that damages be awarded. The DBP and the DBP MRI Pool separately filed their answers, with the former asserting a cross-claim against the latter. At the pre-trial, DBP and the DBP MRI Pool admitted all the documents and exhibits submitted by respondent Estate. As a result of these admissions, the trial court narrowed down the issues and, without opposition from the parties, found the case ripe for summary judgment. Consequently, the trial court ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers and documentary evidence, which may serve as basis for the judgment. On March 10, 1990, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent Estate and against DBP. The DBP MRI Pool, however, was absolved from liability, after the trial court found no privity of contract between it and the deceased. The trial court declared DBP in estoppel for having led Dans into applying for MRI and actually collecting the premium and the service fee, despite knowledge of his age ineligibility. The dispositive portion of the decision read as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration and in the furtherance of justice and equity, the Court finds judgment for the plaintiff and against Defendant DBP, ordering the latter: 1. To return and reimburse plaintiff the amount of P139,500.00 plus legal rate of interest as amortization payment paid under protest; 2. To consider the mortgage loan of P300,000.00 including all interest accumulated or otherwise to have been settled, satisfied or set-off by virtue of the insurance coverage of the late Juan B. Dans; 3. To pay plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; 4. To pay plaintiff in the amount of P10,000.00 as costs of litigation and other expenses, and other relief just and equitable. The Counterclaims of Defendants DBP and DBP MRI POOL are hereby dismissed. The Cross-claim of Defendant DBP is likewise dismissed (Rollo, p. 79) The DBP appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated September 7, 1992, the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. The DBP's motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated April 20, 1993. Hence, this recourse. II When Dans applied for MRI, he filled up and personally signed a "Health Statement for DBP MRI Pool" (Exh. "5-Bank") with the following declaration:

I hereby declare and agree that all the statements and answers contained herein are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and form part of my application for insurance. It is understood and agreed that no insurance coverage shall be effected unless and until this application is approved and the full premium is paid during my continued good health (Records, p. 40). Under the aforementioned provisions, the MRI coverage shall take effect: (1) when the application shall be approved by the insurance pool; and (2) when the full premium is paid during the continued good health of the applicant. These two conditions, being joined conjunctively, must concur. Undisputably, the power to approve MRI applications is lodged with the DBP MRI Pool. The pool, however, did not approve the application of Dans. There is also no showing that it accepted the sum of P1,476.00, which DBP credited to its account with full knowledge that it was payment for Dan's premium. There was, as a result, no perfected contract of insurance; hence, the DBP MRI Pool cannot be held liable on a contract that does not exist. The liability of DBP is another matter. It was DBP, as a matter of policy and practice, that required Dans, the borrower, to secure MRI coverage. Instead of allowing Dans to look for his own insurance carrier or some other form of insurance policy, DBP compelled him to apply with the DBP MRI Pool for MRI coverage. When Dan's loan was released on August 11, 1987, DBP already deducted from the proceeds thereof the MRI premium. Four days latter, DBP made Dans fill up and sign his application for MRI, as well as his health statement. The DBP later submitted both the application form and health statement to the DBP MRI Pool at the DBP Main Building, Makati Metro Manila. As service fee, DBP deducted 10 percent of the premium collected by it from Dans. In dealing with Dans, DBP was wearing two legal hats: the first as a lender, and the second as an insurance agent. As an insurance agent, DBP made Dans go through the motion of applying for said insurance, thereby leading him and his family to believe that they had already fulfilled all the requirements for the MRI and that the issuance of their policy was forthcoming. Apparently, DBP had full knowledge that Dan's application was never going to be approved. The maximum age for MRI acceptance is 60 years as clearly and specifically provided in Article 1 of the Group Mortgage Redemption Insurance Policy signed in 1984 by all the insurance companies concerned (Exh. "1-Pool"). Under Article 1987 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "the agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers." The DBP is not authorized to accept applications for MRI when its clients are more than 60 years of age (Exh. "1-Pool"). Knowing all the while that Dans was ineligible for MRI coverage because of his advanced age, DBP exceeded the scope of its authority when it accepted Dan's application for MRI by collecting the insurance premium, and deducting its agent's commission and service fee. The liability of an agent who exceeds the scope of his authority depends upon whether the third person is aware of the limits of the agent's powers. There is no showing that Dans knew of the limitation on DBP's authority to solicit applications for MRI.

If the third person dealing with an agent is unaware of the limits of the authority conferred by the principal on the agent and he (third person) has been deceived by the non-disclosure thereof by the agent, then the latter is liable for damages to him (V Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, p. 422 [1992], citing Sentencia [Cuba] of September 25, 1907). The rule that the agent is liable when he acts without authority is founded upon the supposition that there has been some wrong or omission on his part either in misrepresenting, or in affirming, or concealing the authority under which he assumes to act (Francisco, V., Agency 307 [1952], citing Hall v. Lauderdale, 46 N.Y. 70, 75). Inasmuch as the non-disclosure of the limits of the agency carries with it the implication that a deception was perpetrated on the unsuspecting client, the provisions of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines come into play. Article 19 provides: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Article 20 provides: Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Article 21 provides: Any person, who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The DBP's liability, however, cannot be for the entire value of the insurance policy. To assume that were it not for DBP's concealment of the limits of its authority, Dans would have secured an MRI from another insurance company, and therefore would have been fully insured by the time he died, is highly speculative. Considering his advanced age, there is no absolute certainty that Dans could obtain an insurance coverage from another company. It must also be noted that Dans died almost immediately, i.e., on the nineteenth day after applying for the MRI, and on the twenty-third day from the date of release of his loan. One is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 2199). Damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty (Refractories Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 539 [1989]; Choa Tek Hee v. Philippine Publishing Co., 34 Phil. 447 [1916]). Speculative damages are too remote to be included in an accurate estimate of damages (Sun Life Assurance v. Rueda Hermanos, 37 Phil. 844 [1918]). While Dans is not entitled to compensatory damages, he is entitled to moral damages. No proof of pecuniary loss is required in the assessment of said kind of damages (Civil Code of Philippines, Art. 2216). The same may be recovered in acts referred to in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. The assessment of moral damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 2216). Considering that DBP had offered to pay P30,000.00 to respondent Estate in ex gratia settlement of its claim and that DBP's non-disclosure of the limits of its authority amounted to a deception to its client, an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 would be reasonable.

The award of attorney's fees is also just and equitable under the circumstances (Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 2208 [11]). WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R.-CV No. 26434 is MODIFIED and petitioner DBP is ORDERED: (1) to REIMBURSE respondent Estate of Juan B. Dans the amount of P1,476.00 with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid; and (2) to PAY said Estate the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as attorney's fees. With costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. G.R. Nos. 152505-06 September 13, 2007

PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE and ASSURANCE, INC., petitioner, vs. EQUINOX LAND CORPORATION, respondent. DECISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: Before us for resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (Third Division) dated November 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 56491 and CA-G.R. SP No. 57335. The undisputed facts of the case, as established by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are: Sometime in 1996, Equinox Land Corporation (Equinox), respondent, decided to construct five (5) additional floors to its existing building, the Eastgate Centre, located at 169 EDSA, Mandaluyong City. It then sent invitations to bid to various building contractors. Four (4) building contractors, including JMarc Construction & Development Corporation (JMarc), responded. Finding the bid of JMarc to be the most advantageous, Equinox offered the construction project to it. On February 22, 1997, JMarc accepted the offer. Two days later, Equinox formally awarded to JMarc the contract to build the extension for a consideration of P37,000,000.00. On February 24, 1997, JMarc submitted to Equinox two (2) bonds, namely: (1) a surety bond issued by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (Prudential), herein petitioner, in the amount of P9,250,000.00 to guarantee the unliquidated portion of the advance payment payable to JMarc; and (2) a performance bond likewise issued by Prudential in the amount of P7,400,000.00 to guarantee JMarcs faithful performance of its obligations under the construction agreement. On March 17, 1997, Equinox and JMarc signed the contract and related documents. Under the terms of the contract, JMarc would supply all the labor, materials, tools, equipment, and supervision required to complete the project.

In accordance with the terms of the contract, Equinox paid JMarc a downpayment of P9,250,000.00 equivalent to 25% of the contract price. JMarc did not adhere to the terms of the contract. It failed to submit the required monthly progress billings for the months of March and April 1997. Its workers neglected to cover the drainpipes, hence, they were clogged by wet cement. This delayed the work on the project. On May 23, 1997, JMarc requested an unscheduled cash advance of P300,000.00 from Equinox, explaining it had encountered cash problems. Equinox granted JMarcs request to prevent delay. On May 31, 1997, JMarc submitted its first progress billing showing that it had accomplished only 7.3825% of the construction work estimated at P2,731,535.00. After deducting the advanced payments, the net amount payable to JMarc was only P1,285,959.12. Of this amount, Equinox paid JMarc only P697,005.12 because the former paid EXAN P588,954.00 for concrete mix. Shortly after Equinox paid JMarc based on its first progress billing, the latter again requested an advanced payment of P150,000.00. Again Equinox paid JMarc this amount. Eventually, Equinox found that the amount owing to JMarcs laborers was only P121,000.00, not P150,000.00. In June 1997, EXAN refused to deliver concrete mix to the project site due to JMarcs recurring failure to pay on time. Faced with a looming delay in the project schedule, Equinox acceded to EXANs request that payments for the concrete mix should be remitted to it directly. On June 30, 1997, JMarc submitted its second progress billing showing that it accomplished only 16.0435% of the project after 4 months of construction work. Based on the contract and its own schedule, JMarc should have accomplished at least 37.70%. Faced with the problem of delay, Equinox formally gave JMarc one final chance to take remedial steps in order to finish the project on time. However, JMarc failed to undertake any corrective measure. Consequently, on July 10, 1997, Equinox terminated its contract with JMarc and took over the project. On the same date, Equinox sent Prudential a letter claiming relief from JMarcs violations of the contract. On July 11, 1997, the work on the project stopped. The personnel of both Equinox and JMarc jointly conducted an inventory of all materials, tools, equipment, and supplies at the construction site. They also measured and recorded the amount of work actually accomplished. As of July 11, 1997, JMarc accomplished only 19.0573% of the work or a shortage of 21.565% in violation of the contract. The cost of JMarcs accomplishment was only P7,051,201.00. In other words, Equinox overpaid JMarc in the sum of P3,974,300.25 inclusive of the 10% retention on the first progress billing amounting to P273,152.50. In addition, Equinox also paid the wages of JMarcs laborers, the billings for unpaid supplies, and the amounts owing to subcontractors of JMarc in the total sum of P664,998.09. On August 25, 1997, Equinox filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 214, Mandaluyong City a complaint for sum of money and damages against JMarc and Prudential. Equinox prayed that JMarc be ordered to reimburse the amounts corresponding to its (Equinox) advanced payments and unliquidated portion of its downpayment; and to pay damages. Equinox also prayed that Prudential be ordered to pay its liability under the bonds.

In its answer, JMarc alleged that Equinox has no valid ground for terminating their contract. For its part, Prudential denied Equinoxs claims and instituted a cross-claim against JMarc for any judgment that might be rendered against its bonds. During the hearing, Prudential filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that pursuant to Executive Order No. 1008, it is the CIAC which has jurisdiction over it. On February 12, 1999, the trial court granted Prudentials motion and dismissed the case. On May 19, 1999, Equinox filed with the CIAC a request for arbitration, docketed as CIAC Case No. 1799. Prudential submitted a position paper contending that the CIAC has no jurisdiction over it since it is not a privy to the construction contract between Equinox and JMarc; and that its surety and performance bonds are not construction agreements, thus, any action thereon lies exclusively with the proper court. On December 21, 1999, the CIAC rendered its Decision in favor of Equinox and against JMarc and Prudential, thus: AWARD After considering the evidence and the arguments of the parties, we find that: 1. JMarc has been duly notified of the filing and pendency of the arbitration proceeding commenced by Equinox against JMarc and that CIAC has acquired jurisdiction over JMarc; 2. The construction Contract was validly terminated by Equinox due to JMarcs failure to provide a timely supply of adequate labor, materials, tools, equipment, and technical services and to remedy its inability to comply with the construction schedule; 3. Equinox is not entitled to claim liquidated damages, although under the circumstances, in the absence of adequate proof of actual and compensatory damages, we award to Equinox nominal or temperate damages in the amount of P500,000.00; 4. The percentage of accomplishment of JMarc at the time of the termination of the Contract was 19.0573% of the work valued at P7,051,201.00. This amount should be credited to JMarc. On the other hand, Equinox [i] had paid JMarc 25% of the contract price as down or advance payment, [ii] had paid JMarc its first progress billing, [iii] had made advances for payroll of the workers, and for unpaid supplies and the works of JMarcs subcontractors, all in the total sum of P11,690,483.34. Deducting the value of JMarcs accomplishment from these advances and payment, there is due from JMarc to Equinox the amount of P4,639,285.34. We hold JMarc liable to pay Equinox this amount of P4,639,285.34. 5. If JMarc had billed Equinox for its accomplishment as of July 11, 1997, 25% of the P7,051,201.00 would have been recouped as partial payment of the advanced or down payment. This would have resulted in reducing Prudentials liability on the Surety Bond from P8,250,000.00 to P7,487,199.80. We, therefore, find that Prudential is liable to Equinox on its Surety Bond the amount of P7,487,199.80; 6. Prudential is furthermore liable on its Performance Bond for the following amounts: the advances made by Equinox on behalf of JMarc to the workers, suppliers, and subcontractors

amounting to P664,985.09, the nominal damages of P500,000.00 and attorneys fees of P100,000.00 or a total amount of P1,264,985.00; 7. All other claims and counterclaims are denied; 8. JMarc shall pay the cost of arbitration and shall indemnify Equinox the total amount paid by Equinox as expenses of arbitration; 9. The total liability of JMarc to Equinox is determined to be P5,139,285.34 plus attorneys fees of P100,000.00. The suretys liability cannot exceed that of the principal debtor [Art. 2054, Civil Code}. We hold that, notwithstanding our finding in Nos. 5 and 6 of this Award, Prudential is liable to Equinox on the Surety Bond and Performance Bond an amount not to exceed P5,239,285.34. The cost of arbitration shall be paid by JMarc alone. The amount of P5,239,285.34 shall be paid by respondent JMarc and respondent Prudential, jointly and severally, with interest at six percent [6%] per annum from promulgation of this award. This amount, including accrued interest, shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the time this decision becomes final and executory until the entire amount is fully paid or judgment fully satisfied. The expenses of arbitration, which shall be paid by JMarc alone, shall likewise earn interest at 6% per annum from the date of promulgation of the award, and 12% from the date the award becomes final until this amount including accrued interest is fully paid. SO ORDERED. Thereupon, Prudential filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56491. Prudential alleged that the CIAC erred in ruling that it is bound by the terms of the construction contract between Equinox and JMarc and that it is solidarily liable with JMarc under its bonds. Equinox filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that there is an error in the computation of its claim for unliquidated damages; and that it is entitled to an award of liquidated damages. On February 2, 2000, the CIAC amended its Award by reducing the total liability of JMarc to Equinox to P4,060,780.21, plus attorneys fees of P100,000 or P4,160,780.21, and holding that Prudentials liability to Equinox on the surety and performance bonds should not exceed the said amount of P4,160,780.21, payable by JMarc and Prudential jointly and severally. Dissatisfied, Equinox filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 57335. This case was consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 56491 filed by Prudential. On November 23, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 57335 and CAG.R. SP No. 56491, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Amended Decision dated February 2, 2000 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in paragraph 4 in the Award by holding JMarc liable for unliquidated damages to Equinox in the amount of P5,358,167.09 and in paragraph 9 thereof by increasing the total liability of JMarc to Equinox to P5,958,167.09 (in view of the additional award of P500,000.00 as nominal and temperate damages and P100,000.00 in attorneys fees), and AFFIRMED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED. Prudential seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of Appeals. The issue raised before us is whether the Court of Appeals erred in (1) upholding the jurisdiction of the CIAC over the case; and (2) finding Prudential solidarily liable with JMarc for damages. On the first issue, basic is the rule that administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and as such, can only wield such powers as are specifically granted to them by their enabling statutes.2 Section 4 of Executive Order No. 1008,3 provides: SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. The CIAC shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with contracts entered into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines, whether the dispute arises before or after the completion of the contract, or after the abandonment or breach thereof. These disputes may involve government or private contracts. For the Board to acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute must agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration. The jurisdiction of the CIAC may include but is not limited to violation of specifications for materials and workmanship, violation of the terms of agreement, interpretation and/or application of contractual time and delays, maintenance and defects, payment, default of employer or contractor and changes in contract cost. Excluded from the coverage of the law are disputes arising from employer-employee relationships which continue to be covered by the Labor Code of the Philippines. In David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration Commission,4 we ruled that Section 4 vests upon the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered into by parties who have agreed to submit their case for voluntary arbitration. As earlier mentioned, when Equinox lodged with the RTC its complaint for a sum of money against JMarc and Prudential, the latter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, contending that since the case involves a construction dispute, jurisdiction lies with CIAC. Prudentials motion was granted. However, after the CIAC assumed jurisdiction over the case, Prudential again moved for its dismissal, alleging that it is not a party to the construction contract between Equinox and JMarc; and that the surety and performance bonds it issued are not construction agreements. After having voluntarily invoked before the RTC the jurisdiction of CIAC, Prudential is estopped to question its jurisdiction. As we held in Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corporation v. Estita,5 the active participation of a party in a case pending against him before a court or a quasi-judicial body is tantamount to a recognition of that courts or quasi-judicial bodys jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the courts or quasi-judicial bodys jurisdiction. Moreover, in its Reply to Equinoxs Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss before the RTC, Prudential, citing Philippine National Bank v. Pineda6 and Finman General Assurance Corporation v. Salik,7 argued that as a surety, it is considered under the law to be the same party as the obligor in relation to whatever is adjudged regarding the latters obligation. Therefore, it is the CIAC which has jurisdiction over the case

involving a construction contract between Equinox and JMarc. Such an admission by Prudential binds it and it cannot now claim otherwise. Anent the second issue, it is not disputed that Prudential entered into a suretyship contract with JMarc. Section 175 of the Insurance Code defines a suretyship as "a contract or agreement whereby a party, called the suretyship, guarantees the performance by another party, called the principal or obligor, of an obligation or undertaking in favor of a third party, called the obligee. It includes official recognizances, stipulations, bonds, or undertakings issued under Act 5368, as amended." Corollarily, Article 2047 of the Civil Code provides that suretyship arises upon the solidary binding of a person deemed the surety with the principal debtor for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation. In Castellvi de Higgins and Higgins v. Seliner,9 we held that while a surety and a guarantor are alike in that each promises to answer for the debt or default of another, the surety assumes liability as a regular party to the undertaking and hence its obligation is primary. In Security Pacific Assurance Corporation v. Tria-Infante,10 we reiterated the rule that while a contract of surety is secondary only to a valid principal obligation, the suretys liability to the credit or is said to be direct, primary, and absolute. In other words, the surety is directly and equally bound with the principal. Thus, Prudential is barred from disclaiming that its liability with JMarc is solidary. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals (Third Division) dated November 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 56491 and CA-G.R. SP No. 57355 is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 76101-02 September 30, 1991 TIO KHE CHIO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and EASTERN ASSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, respondents. Rodolfo M. Morelos for petitioner. Ferrer, Mariano, Sangalang & Gatdula for private respondent.

FERNAN, C.J.:p The issue in this petition for certiorari and prohibition is the legal rate of interest to be imposed in actions for damages arising from unpaid insurance claims. Petitioner Tio Khe Chio claims that it should be twelve (12%) per cent pursuant to Articles 243 and 244 of the Insurance Code while private respondent Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation (EASCO) claims that it should be six (6%) per cent under Article 2209 of the Civil Code. The facts are as follows: On December 18, 1978, petitioner Tio Khe Chio imported one thousand (1,000) bags of fishmeal valued at $36,000.30 from Agro Impex, U.S.A. Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. The goods were

insured with respondent EASCO and shipped on board the M/V Peskov, a vessel owned by Far Eastern Shipping Company. When the goods reached Manila on January 28, 1979, they were found to have been damaged by sea water which rendered the fishmeal useless. Petitioner filed a claim with EASCO and Far Eastern Shipping. Both refused to pay. Whereupon, petitioner sued them before the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch II for damages. EASCO, as the insurer, filed a counterclaim against the petitioner for the recovery of P18,387.86 representing the unpaid insurance premiums. On June 30, 1982, the trial court rendered judgment ordering EASCO and Far Eastern Shipping to pay petitioner solidarily the sum of P105,986.68 less the amount of P18,387.86 for unpaid premiums with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint, the sum of P15,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs. 1 The judgment became final as to EASCO but the shipping company appealed to the Court of Appeals and was absolved from liability by the said court in AC-G.R. No. 00161, entitled "Tio Khe Chio vs. Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation." The trial court, upon motion by petitioner, issued a writ of execution against EASCO. The sheriff enforcing the writ reportedly fixed the legal rate of interest at twelve (12%). Respondent EASCO moved to quash the writ alleging that the legal interest to be computed should be six (6%) per cent per annum in accordance with Article 2209 of the Civil Code and not twelve (12%) per cent as insisted upon by petitioner's counsel. In its order of July 30, 1986, the trial court denied EASCO's motion. EASCO then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals. On July 30, 1986, the Appellate Court rendered the assailed judgment, the dispositive part of which states: WHEREFORE, the order dated July 30, 1986 is hereby SET ASIDE in so far as it fixes the interest at 12% on the principal amount of P87,598.82 from the date of filing of the complaint until the full payment of the amount, and the interest that the private respondent is entitled to collect from the petitioner is hereby reduced to 6% per annum. No pronouncement as to costs. 2 In disputing the aforesaid decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioner maintains that not only is it unjust and unfair but it is also contrary to the correct interpretation of the fixing of interest rates under Sections 243 and 244 of the Insurance Code. And since petitioner's claims is based on an insurance contract, then it is the Insurance Code which must govern and not the Civil Code. We rule for respondent EASCO. The legal rate of interest in the case at bar is six (6%) per annum as correctly held by the Appellate Court. Section 243 of the Insurance Code provides: The amount of any loss or damage for which an insurer may be liable, under any policy other than life insurance policy, shall be paid within thirty days after proof of loss is received by the insurer and ascertainment of the loss or damage is made either by agreement between the insured and the insurer or by arbitration; but if such ascertainment is not had or made within sixty days after such receipt by the insurer of the proof of loss, then the loss or damage shall be paid within ninety days after such receipt. Refusal or failure to pay the loss or damage within the time prescribed herein will entitle the assured

to collect interest on the proceeds of the policy for the duration of the delay at the rate of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board, unless such failure or refusal to pay is based on the ground that the claim is fraudulent. Section 244 of the aforementioned Code also provides: In case of any litigation for the enforcement of any policy or contract of insurance, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner or the Court, as the case may be, to make a finding as to whether the payment of the claim of the insured has been unreasonably denied or withheld; and in the affirmative case, the insurance company shall be adjudged to pay damages which shall consist of attorney's fees and other expenses incurred by the insured person by reason of such undeniable denial or withholding of payment plus interest of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board of the amount of the claim due the insured, from the date following the time prescribed in section two hundred forty-two or in section two hundred forty-three, as the case may be, until the claim is fully satisfied; Provided, That the failure to pay any such claim within the time prescribed in said sections shall be considered prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in payment. In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals made no finding that there was an unjustified refusal or withholding of payment on petitioner's claim. In fact, respondent court had this to say on EASCO's refusal to settle the claim of petitioner: ... EASCO's refusal to settle the claim to Tio Khe Chio was based on some ground which, while not sufficient to free it from liability under its policy, nevertheless is sufficient to negate any assertion that in refusing to pay, it acted unjustifiably. xxx xxx xxx The case posed some genuine issues of interpretation of the terms of the policy as to which persons may honestly differ. This is the reason the trial court did not say EASCO's refusal was unjustified. 3 Simply put, the aforecited sections of the Insurance Code are not pertinent to the instant case. They apply only when the court finds an unreasonable delay or refusal in the payment of the claims. Neither does Circular No. 416 of the Central Bank which took effect on July 29, 1974 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 116 (Usury Law) which raised the legal rate of interest from six (6%) to twelve (12%) per cent apply to the case at bar as by the petitioner. The adjusted rate mentioned in the circular refers only to loans or forbearances of money, goods or credits and court judgments thereon but not to court judgments for damages arising from injury to persons and loss of property which does not involve a loan. 4 In the case of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 71017, July 28, 1986, 143 SCRA 158, the Court declared that the legal rate of interest is six (6%) per cent per annum, and not twelve (12%) per cent, where a judgment award is based on an action for damages for personal injury, not use or forbearance of money, goods or credit. In the same vein, the Court held in GSIS vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 52478, October 30, 1986, 145 SCRA 311, that the rates under the Usury Law (amended by P.D. 116) are applicable only to interest by way of compensation for the use or forbearance of money, interest by way of damages is governed by Article 2209 of the Civil Code.

Clearly, the applicable law is Article 2209 of the Civil Code which reads: If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest which is six per cent per annum. And in the light of the fact that the contending parties did not allege the rate of interest stipulated in the insurance contract, the legal interest was properly pegged by the Appellate Court at six (6%) per cent. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.