Insular Life v. Ebrado
Insular Life v. Ebrado
Insular Life v. Ebrado
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
182
183
MARTIN, J.:
184
185
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.
_______________
186
_______________
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 fear 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 of 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
_______________
188
189
Judgment affirmed.
_______________
190
o0o
191