In Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance policy is a contract of adhesion, meaning any ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. The Court emphasized that insurers must clearly and explicitly state any exceptions or limitations to coverage within the policy.
Edillon vs. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. [September 30, 1982] Read More »
In Argente v. West Coast Life Insurance Co., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance contract can be rescinded if the insured conceals material facts, even unintentionally. The Court emphasized that all relevant information must be disclosed to the insurer to ensure the validity of the policy.
Argente vs. West Coast Life Insurance Co. [March 19, 1928] Read More »
In Sunlife Assurance v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that an insured’s failure to disclose significant health issues, such as recent hospitalization for renal failure, allows the insurer to rescind the policy, even if the undisclosed condition is unrelated to the cause of death.
Sunlife Assurance vs. Court of Appeals [June 22, 1995] Read More »
In Canilang v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that an insured’s failure to disclose prior medical consultations constitutes material concealment, allowing the insurer to rescind the policy. The Court emphasized that concealment need not be intentional; even unintentional omissions can void the contract.
In Ng v. Asian Crusader Life Assurance Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that for an insurer to rescind a policy due to misrepresentation, the misrepresentation must be both material and fraudulent. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving such misrepresentation lies with the insurer.
In Visayan Sawmill Co. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract to sell, contingent upon the buyer opening an irrevocable letter of credit by a specified date, is unenforceable if the buyer fails to meet this condition. The seller may rescind the contract without liability.
Visayan Sawmill Co. vs. Court of Appeals [March 3, 1993] Read More »
In Lawyer’s Cooperative v. Tabora, the Supreme Court held that when a buyer receives goods but the seller retains title to secure payment, the risk of loss transfers to the buyer upon delivery. Therefore, the buyer is liable for the remaining balance even if the goods are later destroyed.
Lawyer’s Cooperative vs. Tabora [April 30, 1965] Read More »
In Chrysler Philippines Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Sambok Motors Co., the Supreme Court held that if a seller fails to deliver goods to the buyer as agreed, the seller bears the risk of loss. Therefore, the seller cannot demand payment for undelivered goods.
Chrysler Philippines Corporation vs. CA and Sambok Motors Co. [December 19, 1984] Read More »
In Norkis Distribution, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that without actual or constructive delivery, ownership—and thus the risk of loss—remains with the seller. Despite issuing a sales invoice and registering the motorcycle in the buyer’s name, Norkis retained ownership when the vehicle was destroyed.
Norkis Distribution, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [February 7, 1991] Read More »
In Roman v. Grimalt, the Supreme Court held that a sale isn’t perfected without mutual agreement on the object and price. Here, the seller couldn’t prove ownership of the schooner, preventing contract perfection. Consequently, the seller bore the loss when the vessel was destroyed before delivery.
