Scribd
Upload
89 views

Manulife Vs Ybanez, GR 204736, Nov. 28, 2016

Manulife Philippines filed a complaint seeking to rescind two life insurance policies issued to Dr. Gumersindo Solidum Ybañez due to alleged concealment or misrepresentation of material facts in the insurance applications. However, the trial court and appellate court both found that Manulife failed to prove the insured committed concealment or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that Manulife did not present sufficient evidence and witnesses to establish the insured had fraudulent intent. As the insurer asserting rescission as a defense, Manulife bore the burden of proof through satisfactory and convincing evidence, which it failed to provide. Therefore, the petition was denied and prior rulings dismissing the complaint were affirmed.

Uploaded by

mhickey babon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
89 views

Manulife Vs Ybanez, GR 204736, Nov. 28, 2016

Manulife Philippines filed a complaint seeking to rescind two life insurance policies issued to Dr. Gumersindo Solidum Ybañez due to alleged concealment or misrepresentation of material facts in the insurance applications. However, the trial court and appellate court both found that Manulife failed to prove the insured committed concealment or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that Manulife did not present sufficient evidence and witnesses to establish the insured had fraudulent intent. As the insurer asserting rescission as a defense, Manulife bore the burden of proof through satisfactory and convincing evidence, which it failed to provide. Therefore, the petition was denied and prior rulings dismissing the complaint were affirmed.

Uploaded by

mhickey babon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

204736, November 28, 2016


MANULIFE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. HERMENEGILDA YBAÑEZ
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Facts:
 It is alleged in the Complaint that Insurance Policy (subject insurance policies) which
Manulife issued on October 25, 2002 and on July 25, 2003, respectively, both in favor of
Dr. Gumersindo Solidum Ybañez (insured), were void due to concealment or
misrepresentation of material facts in the latter's applications for life insurance,
particularly the forms entitled Non-Medical Evidence, Medical Evidence Exam ,
Declaration of Insurability in the Application for Life Insurance (DOI) that
Hermenegilda, wife of the said insured, was revocably designated as beneficiary in the
subject insurance policies
 That on November 17, 2003, when one of the subject insurance policies had been in force
for only one year and three months, while the other for only four months, the insured
died; that on December 10, 2003
 Hermenegilda, now widow to the said insured, filed a Claimant's Statement-Death
Claim13 with respect to the subject insurance policies
 That the Death Certificate dated November 17, 2003 stated that the insured had
"Hepatocellular CA., Crd Stage 4, secondary to Uric Acid Nephropathy; SAM
Nephropathy recurrent malignant pleural effusion; NASCVC"
 That Manulife conducted an investigation into the circumstances leading to the said
insured's death, in view of the aforementioned entries in the said insured's Death
Certificate
 That Manulife thereafter concluded that the insured misrepresented or concealed material
facts at the time the subject insurance policies were applied for; and that for this reason
Manulife accordingly denied Hermenegilda's death claims and refunded the premiums
that the insured paid on the subject insurance policies.
 Due to the Insured's concealment of material facts at the time the subject insurance
policies were applied for and issued, [Manulife] exercised its right to rescind the subject
insurance contracts and denied the claims on those policies.
 Manulife thus prayed that judgment be rendered finding its act of rescinding the subject
insurance policies proper; declaring these subject insurance policies null and void; and
discharging. it from any obligation whatsoever under these policies.
 In her Answer, Hermenegilda countered that:[Manulife's own insurance agent, Ms. Elvira
Monteclaros herself] assured [the insured,] that there would be no problem regarding the
application for the insurance policy.
 In fact, it was Monteclaros who filled up everything in the questionnaire so that [all that
the insured needed to do was sign it,] and it's done. [It was also Ms. Monteclaros who
herself] checked in advance all the boxes in Annex "C," [that the insured himself was
required to answer or check].
Issue:
Whether the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the RTC Decision dismissing
Manulife's Complaint for rescission of insurance contracts for failure to prove concealment on
the part of the insured.

Ruling:
No. This Court must defer to the findings of fact of the RTC - as affirmed or confirmed by the
CA - that Manulife's Complaint for rescission of the insurance policies in question was totally
bereft of factual and legal bases because it had utterly failed to prove that the insured had
committed the alleged misrepresentation/s or concealment/s of material facts imputed against
him. The RTC correctly held that the CDH's medical records that might have established the
insured's purported misrepresentation/s or concealment/s was inadmissible for being hearsay,
given the fact that Manulife failed to present the physician or any responsible official of the CDH
who could confirm or attest to the due execution and authenticity of the alleged medical records.
Manulife had utterly failed to prove by convincing evidence that it had been beguiled, inveigled,
or cajoled into selling the insurance to the insured who purportedly with malice and deceit
passed himself off as thoroughly sound and healthy, and thus a fit and proper applicant for life
insurance. Manulife's sole witness gave no evidence at all relative to the particulars of the
purported concealment or misrepresentation allegedly perpetrated by the insured. In fact,
Victoriano merely perfunctorily identified the documentary exhibits adduced by Manulife; she
never testified in regard to the circumstances attending the execution of these documentary
exhibits much less in regard to its contents. Of course, the mere mechanical act of identifying
these documentary exhibits, without the testimonies of the actual participating parties thereto,
adds up to nothing. These documentary exhibits did not automatically validate or explain
themselves. "The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to entitle the
insurer to rescind the contract. Misrepresentation as a defense of the insurer to avoid liability is
an affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing
evidence rests upon the insurer."39 For failure of Manulife to prove intent to defraud on the part
of the insured, it cannot validly sue for rescission of insurance contracts.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated April 26, 2012 in CA-G.R. CV No. 95561 and its December 10, 2012 Resolution, are
AFFIRMED.

You might also like