View full case

SPS. ANTONIO A. TIBAY v. COURTOF APPEALS

FACTS:

On January 22, 1987, Fortune Life and General Insurance Co., Inc. (FORTUNE) issued a fire insurance policy in favor of Violeta R. Tibay and/or Nicolas Roraldo for their residential building in Makati City. The insurance was for P600,000.00 and covered the period from January 23, 1987, to January 23, 1988. On January 23, 1987, Tibay only paid P600.00, leaving a balance unpaid. On March 8, 1987, the insured building was destroyed by fire, and Tibay paid the balance of the premium. She then filed a claim with FORTUNE, which was referred to its adjuster, Goodwill Adjustment Services, Inc. (GASI). Tibay signed a non-waiver agreement with GASI. In June 1987, FORTUNE denied the claim. Tibay and other petitioners sued FORTUNE for damages in March 1988. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ordered FORTUNE to return the premium paid by Tibay. The petitioners argue that FORTUNE is liable under the fire insurance policy despite partial payment of the premium.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a fire insurance policy can be considered valid, binding, and enforceable upon mere partial payment of the premium.

RULING:

The Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, held that the fire insurance policy in question was not valid, binding, or enforceable because the premium had not been fully paid prior to the occurrence of the insured peril (fire). This ruling is based on the specific provision in the insurance policy that expressly required full payment of the premium for the policy to be effective, and this condition was also in accordance with Sec. 77 of the Insurance Code which mandates that no policy or contract of insurance is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid in full.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Insurance contracts fundamentally serve as risk-distributing mechanisms, and for a policy to be effective, the agreed premium must be fully and timely paid unless specific statutory exceptions apply.

  2. Section 77 of the Insurance Code emphasizes that an insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to peril, and without full payment of the premium, the policy is not valid unless specific exceptions apply.

  3. Judicial interpretations of contractual phrases must align with the explicit mandates of the applicable laws and should yield to the clear stipulations agreed upon by the contracting parties.

  4. In insurance contracts, the intent of the parties, as expressly stipulated in their agreement, primarily determines the extent and limitations of coverage.

  5. Partial payments of a premium do not fulfill the statutory requirement of full payment, and such partial payments cannot be construed as creating a valid and binding insurance contract unless there are express provisions to the contrary in the policy or an implied agreement evidenced by actions of the parties, such as acceptance of partial payments without reservation.

  6. The exceptions to the requirement of full premium payment prior to the effectivity of an insurance policy are limited to life or industrial life insurance where a grace period applies, or where the insurer provides a written acknowledgment of receipt of premium that conclusively evidences the payment.