Facts:: 1. Cia de Seguros Vs Christern
Facts:: 1. Cia de Seguros Vs Christern
Facts:: 1. Cia de Seguros Vs Christern
FACTS:
Christern, Huenfeld & Co. a corporation controlled by German
subjects obtained a fire insurance policy in the Philippines on
October 1. 1941 covering merchandise contained in a building located 2. PHIL-AM LIFE INS. CO VS PINEDA
at No. 711 Roman Street, Binondo Manila.
FACTS:
On December 10, 1941, war broke out between United States On January 15, 1968, Dimayuga procured an ordinary life insurance
and Germany. Thereafter, the goods insured were burned. policy from Phil-am Life and designated his wife and children as
irrevocable beneficiaries. The wife died while the children were still
Thereafter the insured filed a claim to the insurer but the they denied minors. Dimayuga filed a petition in court to change his beneficiaries.
it on the ground that refused to pay the claim on the ground that the The minors gave their consent to the change of beneficiaries.
policy in favor of the respondent had ceased to be in force on the Dimayuga claimed that the court upon any just and reasonable
date the United States declared war against Germany, the ground may change an irrevocable beneficiaries.
respondent Corporation (though organized under and by virtue of the
ISSUE:
laws of the Philippines) being controlled by the German subjects and
the petitioner being a company under American jurisdiction when said SHOULD THE COURT GRANT THE PETITION TO CHANGE THE
policy was issued on October 1, 1941. IRREVOCABLE BENFICIARIES. – NO.
RULING:
ISSUE:
CAN THE INSURER BE MADE LIABLE? The petition should be denied. It is only with the consent of all the
beneficiaries that any change or amendment to the policy concerning
RULING: the irrevocable beneficiaries may be legally and validly effected. There
No. the insurer was not liable. The insured became an enemy is no other exception thus; abrogating the contention of Dimayuga
corporation because of the outbreak of the way between the United that said designation can be amended if the courts find a just,
States and Germany and the policy ceased to be allowable as soon as reasonable ground to do so. The consent given by the minors was not
the insured became public enemy. However, the premium paid for effective since they cannot validly give their consent to the change of
the period after the insured became a public enemy should be beneficiaries.
returned.
When the designation is IRREVOCABLE, it cannot be changed. They
The Philippine Insurance Law (Act No. 2427, as amended,) in section
can only be change when the consent of the beneficiary and since
8, provides that "anyone except a public enemy may be insured." It
they are minors they cannot give their consent. There is no other
stands to reason that an insurance policy ceases to be allowable as
exception in this case. The consent given by minors are not effective
soon as an insured becomes a public enemy.
because they cannot validly give consent.
RULING:
ISSUE: