Hilario Gercio took out a life insurance policy naming his wife Andrea as the beneficiary. Andrea and Hilario later divorced. Hilario then tried to change the beneficiary to his new wife, but the insurance company refused. The court ruled that since the original policy did not allow for changing beneficiaries without consent, and Philippine law does not provide for automatically changing beneficiaries after a divorce, Andrea remained the rightful beneficiary as her rights had already vested with the original policy. The husband cannot unilaterally change beneficiaries in this situation.
Hilario Gercio took out a life insurance policy naming his wife Andrea as the beneficiary. Andrea and Hilario later divorced. Hilario then tried to change the beneficiary to his new wife, but the insurance company refused. The court ruled that since the original policy did not allow for changing beneficiaries without consent, and Philippine law does not provide for automatically changing beneficiaries after a divorce, Andrea remained the rightful beneficiary as her rights had already vested with the original policy. The husband cannot unilaterally change beneficiaries in this situation.
Hilario Gercio took out a life insurance policy naming his wife Andrea as the beneficiary. Andrea and Hilario later divorced. Hilario then tried to change the beneficiary to his new wife, but the insurance company refused. The court ruled that since the original policy did not allow for changing beneficiaries without consent, and Philippine law does not provide for automatically changing beneficiaries after a divorce, Andrea remained the rightful beneficiary as her rights had already vested with the original policy. The husband cannot unilaterally change beneficiaries in this situation.
Hilario Gercio took out a life insurance policy naming his wife Andrea as the beneficiary. Andrea and Hilario later divorced. Hilario then tried to change the beneficiary to his new wife, but the insurance company refused. The court ruled that since the original policy did not allow for changing beneficiaries without consent, and Philippine law does not provide for automatically changing beneficiaries after a divorce, Andrea remained the rightful beneficiary as her rights had already vested with the original policy. The husband cannot unilaterally change beneficiaries in this situation.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
HILARIO GERCIO, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE
OF CANADA, ET AL., defendants. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE OF CANADA, appellant. G.R. No. 23703 September 28, 1925 Facts: Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada issued insurance policy on the life of Hilario Gercio naming his wife Andrea Zialcita,as beneficiary should she survive him; otherwise to the executors, administrators, or assigns of the insured. The policy also contained a schedule of reserves, amounts in cash, paid-up policies, and renewed insurance, guaranteed. The policy did not include any provision reserving to the insured the right to change the beneficiary. Andrea Zialcita was convicted of the crime of adultery. Then a decree of divorce was issued. Hilario Gercio notified the Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada that he had revoked his donation to Andrea Zialcita, and designated his present wife, Adela Garcia de Gercio, as the beneficiary of the policy. But the insurance company refuse. Issue: whether or not the insured may change the beneficiary, the former wife to name his actual wife, where the insured and the beneficiary have been divorced? Ruling: If the husband wishes to retain to himself the control and ownership of the policy he may so provide in the policy. But if the policy contains no provision authorizing a change of beneficiary without the beneficiary's consent, the insured cannot make such change. Accordingly, it is held that a life insurance policy of a husband made payable to the wife as beneficiary, is the separate property of the beneficiary and beyond the control of the husband. As to the effect produced by the divorce, the Philippine Divorce Law, Act No. 2710, merely provides in section 9 that the decree of divorce shall dissolve the community property as soon as such decree becomes final. There is no provision in the Philippine Law permitting the beneficiary in a policy for the benefit of the wife of the husband to be changed after a divorce. It must follow, therefore, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, that if a policy is taken out upon a husband's life the wife is named as beneficiary therein, a subsequent divorce does not destroy her rights under the policy. The rights of a beneficiary in an ordinary life insurance policy become vested upon the issuance of the policy, and can thereafter, during the life of the beneficiary, be defeated only as provided by the terms of the policy.
Heirs of Loreto c. Maramag, Represented by Surviving Spouse Vicenta Pangilinan Maramag, Petitioners, Vs. Eva Verna de Guzman Maramag, Odessa de Guzman Maramag, Karl Brian de Guzman Maramag, Trisha Angelie Maramag,
