03-19-2023, 08:43 PM
Gonzales-Asdala vs. Metrobank
GR#257982
Feb. 23, 2023
The insured under the MRI is the petitioner.
It may not be amiss to state that Section 3 of The Insurance Code provides that the consent of the spouse is not necessary for the validity of an insurance policy taken out by the married person on his or her life.
Section 8 of the Insurance Code provides:
Unless the policy provides, where a mortgagor of property effect insurance in his own name providing that the loss shall be payable to the mortgagee, or assigns a policy of insurance to a mortgagee, the insurance is deemed to be upon the interest of the mortgagor, who does not cease to be a party to the original contract….
The court a quo likewise correctly found that the documents for the procurement of the MRI were signed by the plaintiff-appellant herself, and the Certificate of Group Life Insurance was issued only in her name. these documents sufficiently establish that the plaintiff-appellant is the only name insured under the MRI. Furthermore, Metrobank has shown, that it is not disputed, that the payment of the insurance premium was source from the savings account under the name of the plaintiff-appellant alone.
Metrobank as able to convincingly prove that it was plaintiff-appellant alone who applied for the insurance in connection with the housing loan.
GR#257982
Feb. 23, 2023
The insured under the MRI is the petitioner.
It may not be amiss to state that Section 3 of The Insurance Code provides that the consent of the spouse is not necessary for the validity of an insurance policy taken out by the married person on his or her life.
Section 8 of the Insurance Code provides:
Unless the policy provides, where a mortgagor of property effect insurance in his own name providing that the loss shall be payable to the mortgagee, or assigns a policy of insurance to a mortgagee, the insurance is deemed to be upon the interest of the mortgagor, who does not cease to be a party to the original contract….
The court a quo likewise correctly found that the documents for the procurement of the MRI were signed by the plaintiff-appellant herself, and the Certificate of Group Life Insurance was issued only in her name. these documents sufficiently establish that the plaintiff-appellant is the only name insured under the MRI. Furthermore, Metrobank has shown, that it is not disputed, that the payment of the insurance premium was source from the savings account under the name of the plaintiff-appellant alone.
Metrobank as able to convincingly prove that it was plaintiff-appellant alone who applied for the insurance in connection with the housing loan.