epublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 94071 March 31, 1992

NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES and JULIAN SY, petitioners,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EQUITABLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, RELIANCE SURETY
AND INSURANCE CO., INC. and WESTERN GUARANTY CORPORATION, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

This appeal by certiorari seeks the nullification of the decision 1 of respondent Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 13866 which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch LVII at
Lucena City, jointly deciding Civil Cases Nos. 6-84, 7-84 and 8-84 thereof and consequently ordered
the dismissal of the aforesaid actions filed by herein petitioners.

The undisputed background of this case as found by the court a quo and adopted by respondent
court, being sustained by the evidence on record, we hereby reproduce the same with approval. 2

The antecedents of this case show that Julian Sy and Jose Sy Bang have formed a
business partnership in the City of Lucena. Under the business name of New Life
Enterprises, the partnership engaged in the sale of construction
materials at its place of business, a two storey building situated at Iyam, Lucena City.
The facts show that Julian Sy insured the stocks in trade of New Life Enterpriseswith
Western Guaranty Corporation, Reliance Surety and Insurance. Co., Inc., and
Equitable Insurance Corporation.

On May 15, 1981, Western Guaranty Corporation issued Fire Insurance Policy No.
37201 in the amount of P350,000.00. This policy was renewed on May, 13, 1982.

On July 30,1981, Reliance Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. issued Fire
Insurance Policy No. 69135 inthe amount of P300,000.00 (Renewed under Renewal
Certificate No. 41997) An additional insurancewas issued by the same company on
November 12, 1981 under Fire Insurance Policy No. 71547 in the amount of
P700,000.00.

On February 8, 1982, Equitable Insurance

Corporation issued Fire Insurance Policy No. 39328 in the amount of P200,000.00.

Thus when the building occupied by the New Life Enterprises

was gutted by fire at about 2:00 o'clock inthe morning of October 19, 1982, the
stocks in the trade inside said building were insured against
fire inthe total amount of P1,550,000.00. According to the certification issued by the
 Headquarters, Philippine Constabulary /Integrated National Police,
Camp Crame, the cause of fire was electrical in nature.According to the plaintiffs,
the building and the stocks inside were burned.
After the fire, Julian Sy wentto the agent of
Reliance Insurance whom he asked to accompany him to the
office of the company sothat he can file his claim. He averred that in support of his
claim, he submitted the fire clearance, the insurance policies and inventory
of stocks. He further testified that the three insurance companies are sister
companies, and as a matter of fact when he was following-up his claim with
Equitable Insurance, the Claims Manager told him to go first to Reliance
Insurance and if said company agrees to pay, they would also pay. The same
treatment was given him by the other insurance
companies. Ultimately, thethree insurance companies denied plaintiffs' claim for
payment.

In its letter of denial dated March 9, 1983, (Exhibit "C" No. 8-

84) Western Guaranty Corporationthrough Claims Manager Bernard S. Razon told th
e plaintiff that his claim "is
denied for breach of policyconditions." Reliance Insurance purveyed the same
message in its letter dated November 23, 1982and signed by Executive Vice-
President Mary Dee Co (Exhibit "C" No. 7-84) which said that "plaintiff's
claim is denied for breach of policy conditions." The letter of denial received by the
plaintiff fromEquitable Insurance Corporation (Exhibit "C" No. 6-84) was of the same
tenor, as said letter dated February 22, 1983, and signed by Vice-President
Elma R. Bondad, said "we find that certain policyconditions were violated, therefore,
we regret, we have to deny your claim, as it is hereby denied in its entirety."

In relation to the case against Reliance

Surety and Insurance Company, a certain Atty. Serafin D.Dator, acting in behalf of
the plaintiff, sent a letter dated February 13, 1983 (Exhibit "G-l" No 7-84) toExecutive
Vice-President Mary Dee Co asking that he be informed as to the specific policy
conditions allegedly violated by the plaintiff. In her reply-letter dated March
30, 1983, Executive Vice-PresidentMary Dee Co informed Atty.
Dator that Julian Sy violated Policy Condition No. "3" which requires theinsured
to give notice of any insurance or insurances already effected covering the stocks in
trade. 3

Because of the denial of their claims for payment by the three (3) insurance
companies, petitioner filed separate civilactions against the former before the Regional Trial
Court of Lucena City, which cases were consolidated for trial,
and thereafter the court below rendered its decision on December 19, l986 with the following
disposition:

WHEREFORE, judgment in the above-entitled cases is rendered in the following

manner, viz:

1. In Civil Case No. 6-84, judgment is rendered for the

plaintiff New Life Enterprises and against the defendant Equitable Insurance
Corporation ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of
TwoHundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos and
considering that payment of the claim of the insured hasbeen unreasonably denied, p
ursuant to Sec. 244 of the Insurance Code, defendant is further orderedto pay the pla
 intiff attorney's fees in the amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00)
Pesos. All sums ofmoney to be paid by virtue hereof shall bear interest at 12% per
annum (pursuant to Sec. 244 of theInsurance Code) from
February 14, 1983, (91st day from November 16, 1982, when Sworn Statementof
Fire Claim was received from the insured) until they are fully paid;

2. In Civil Case No. 7-84, judgment is rendered for the plaintiff Julian Sy and against
the defendantReliance Surety and Insurance Co.,
Inc., ordering the latter to pay the former the sum
of P1,000,000.00(P300,000.00 under Policy
No. 69135 and P700,000.00 under Policy No. 71547)
and considering thatpayment of the claim of the
insured has been unreasonably denied, pursuant to
Sec. 244 of theInsurance Code, defendant is further ordered
to pay the plaintiff the amount of P100,000.00 as attorney's fees.

All sums of money to be paid by virtue hereof shall bear interest at 12% per
annum (pursuant to Sec. 244 of the Insurance Code) from February 14, 1983,
(91st day from November 16,
1982 when SwornStatement of Fire Claim was received from the insured) until they
are fully paid;

3. In Civil Case No. 8-84, judgment is rendered for

the plaintiff New Life Enterprises and against thedefendant Western Guaranty Corpor
ation ordering the latter to pay the sum of P350,000.00
to theConsolidated Bank and Trust Corporation,
Lucena Branch, Lucena City, as stipulated on the
face ofPolicy No. 37201, and considering that payment of the
aforementioned sum of money has been
unreasonably denied, pursuant to Sec. 244 of the Insurance Code,
defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of
P35,000.00.

All sums of money to be paid by virtue hereof shall bear interest at 12% per
annum (pursuant to Sec. 244 of the Insurance Code) from February 5, 1982, (91st
day from 1st week of November 1983 when
insured filed formal claim for full indemnity according to adjuster
Vetremar Dela Merced) until they are fully paid. 4

As aforestated, respondent Court of Appeals reversed said judgment of the trial court, hence
this petition the cruxwherein is whether or not Conditions Nos. 3 and 27 of
the insurance contracts were violated by petitioners thereby resulting in
their forfeiture of all the benefits thereunder.

Condition No. 3 of said insurance policies, otherwise known as

the "Other Insurance Clause," is uniformly contained in all the aforestated
insurance contracts of herein petitioners, as follows:

3. The insured shall give notice to the Company

of any insurance or insurances already effected, orwhich
may subsequently be effected, covering any of the property or properties
consisting of stocks intrade, goods in process
 and/or inventories only hereby insured, and unless
such notice be given andthe particulars of such
insurance or insurances be stated therein or endorsed on this policy pursuant to
Section 50 of the Insurance Code, by or on behalf of the Company
before the occurrence of any loss ordamage, all benefits under this policy shall be
deemed forfeited, provided however, that this condition shall not apply when the total
insurance or insurances in force at the time of loss or damage not morethan
P200,000.00. 5

Petitioners admit that the respective insurance policies

issued by private respondents did not state or endorse thereon
the other insurance coverage obtained or subsequently effected on the same stocks in trade for the
loss of which compensation is claimed by petitioners. 6 The policy
issued by respondent Western Guaranty Corporation(Western) did not
declare respondent Reliance Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. (Reliance) and respondent Equitable
Insurance Corporation (Equitable) as co-insurers on the same stocks,
while Reliance's Policies covering the samestocks did not
likewise declare Western and Equitable as such co-insurers. It is
further admitted by petitioners thatEquitable's policy stated "nil" in the space thereon requiring
indication of any co-insurance although there were three (3) policies subsisting on the same stocks
in trade at the time of the loss, namely, that of Western in the amount ofP350,000.00
and two (2) policies of Reliance in the total amount of P1,000,000.00. 7

In other words, the coverage by other insurance or co-insurance effected

or subsequently arranged by petitioners were neither stated nor endorsed in the policies of the three
(3) private respondents, warranting forfeiture of all benefits thereunder if we are to follow the express
stipulation in the aforequoted Policy Condition No. 3.

Petitioners contend that they are not to be blamed for the omissions,
alleging that insurance agent Leon Alvarez (for Western) and Yap Kam Chuan (for
Reliance and Equitable) knew about the existence of the additional insurancecoverage and that they
were not informed about the requirement that such other or additional insurance
should bestated in the policy, as they have not even read policies.8 These contentions cannot pass
judicial muster.

The terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous.

The insured is specifically required to disclose to the insurer any other insurance and its
particulars which he may have effected on the same subject matter. The knowledge of such
insurance by the insurer's agents, even assuming the acquisition thereof by the former,
is not the "notice" that would estop the insurers from denying the claim. Besides, the so-called theory
of imputed knowledge, that is, knowledge of the agent is
knowledge of the principal, aside from being of dubious applicability here has likewisebeen roundly
refuted by respondent court whose factual findings we find acceptable.

Thus, it points out that while petitioner Julian Sy

claimed that he had informed insurance agent Alvarez regarding the co-insurance on the property,
he contradicted himself by inexplicably claiming that he had not read the terms of the policies; that
Yap Dam Chuan could not likewise have obtained such knowledge for the same reason, aside from
the fact that the insurance with Western was obtained before those of
Reliance and Equitable; and that theconclusion of
the trial court that Reliance and Equitable are "sister
companies" is an unfounded conjecture drawnfrom the mere fact that Yap Kam Chuan was
an agent for both companies which also had the same insuranceclaims adjuster. Availment of the
services of the same agents and adjusters by different companies is a
commonpractice in the insurance business and such facts
do not warrant the speculative conclusion of the trial court.

Furthermore, when the words and language of documents are clear and plain
or readily understandable by an ordinary reader thereof, there is absolutely no room for
interpretation or construction anymore.9 Courts are not allowed to make contracts
for the parties; rather, they will intervene only when the terms of the policy areambiguous, equivocal,
or uncertain. 10 The parties must abide by the terms of the contract because such termsconstitute the
measure of the insurer's liability and compliance therewith is a
condition precedent to the insured'sright of recovery from the insurer. 11

While it is a cardinal principle of insurance law that a policy or contract

of insurance is to be construed liberally infavor of the insured and strictly against the insurer
company, yet contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to
the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties themselves have used. If suchterms are clear
and unambiguous, they must be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular
sense. 12Moreover, obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between
the contracting parties and should becomplied with in good faith. 13

Petitioners should be aware of the fact that a party is not relieved of the duty to exercise the ordinary
care and prudence that would be exacted in relation to other contracts. The conformity of the insured
to the terms of the policy is implied from his failure to express any disagreement with
what is provided for.14 It may be true that themajority rule, as cited by petitioners, is that injured
persons may accept policies without reading them, and that this is not negligence per se. 15 But, this is
not without any exception. It is and was incumbent upon petitioner Sy to read the insurance contracts, and this can be reasonably expected
of him considering that he has been a businessman since 196516 and the contract concerns indemnity in case of loss in his money-
making trade of which important consideration he could not have been unaware as it was pre-in case of loss in his money-making trade of
which important consideration he could not have been unaware as it was precisely the reason for his procuring the same.

We reiterate our pronouncement in Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. Yap: 17

...
And considering the terms of the policy which required the insured to declare other in
surances, thestatement in question must be deemed to be a statement (warranty)
binding on both insurer and insured, that there were no other insurance on the
property. . . .

The annotation then, must be deemed to be a warranty that the property was not
insured by any other policy. Violation thereof entitled the insurer to rescind (Sec. 69,
Insurance Act). Such misrepresentation is fatal in the light of our views in Santa Ana
vs. Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd., 55 Phil. 329.
The materiality of non-disclosure of other insurance policies is not open to doubt.

xxx xxx xxx

The obvious purpose of the aforesaid requirement in the policy is to prevent over-
insurance and thus avert the perpetration of fraud. The public, as well as the insurer,
is interested in preventing the situation in which a fire would be profitable to
the insured. According to Justice Story: "The insured has no right to complain, for he
assents to comply with all the stipulations on his side, in order to entitlehimself to the
benefit of the contract, which, upon reason or principle, he
 has no right to ask the court to dispense with the performance of his own part of the
agreement, and yet to bind the other party to
obligations, which, but for those stipulations, would not have been entered into."

Subsequently, in the case of Pacific Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 18 we held:

It is not disputed that the insured failed to reveal before the

loss three other insurances. As found by the Court
of Appeals, by reason of said unrevealed insurances, the insured had been guilty of
a falsedeclaration; a clear misrepresentation and a vital one because where
the insured had been asked to reveal but did not, that was deception. Otherwise
stated, had the insurer known that there were many co-insurances, it could
have hesitated or plainly desisted from entering into such contract.
Hence, theinsured was guilty of clear fraud (Rollo, p. 25).

Petitioner's contention that the allegation of fraud is but

a mere inference or suspicion is untenable. In fact, concrete evidence of fraud or
false declaration by the insured was furnished by the petitioner itself when the facts
alleged in the policy under clauses "Co-Insurances Declared" and
"Other InsuranceClause" are materially different from the actual number of co-
insurances taken over the subjectproperty. Consequently, "the whole foundation of
the contract fails, the risk does not attach and thepolicy never becomes a contract
between the parties." Representations of facts are the foundation ofthe contract and
if the foundation does not exist, the superstructure does
not arise. Falsehood in suchrepresentations is not shown to vary
or add to the contract, or to terminate a contract which has oncebeen made, but to
show that no contract has ever
existed (Tolentino, Commercial Laws of thePhilippines, p.
991, Vol. II, 8th Ed.,) A void or inexistent contract is one which has no
force and effectfrom the very beginning, as if it had never been entered into, and
which cannot be validated either bytime or by ratification
(Tongoy vs. C.A., 123 SCRA 99 (1983); Avila v. C.A., 145 SCRA, 1986).

As the insurance policy against fire expressly required that notice should be given by
the insured ofother insurance upon the same property, the total absence of such
notice nullifies the policy.

To further warrant and justify the forfeiture of the

benefits under the insurance contracts involved, we need
merely toturn to Policy Condition No. 15 thereof, which reads in part:

15. . . . if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof, . .

. all benefits under this Policy shall be forfeited . . . . 19

Additionally, insofar as the liability of respondent

Reliance is concerned, it is not denied that the complaint for recovery was filed in court by petitioners
only on January 31, 1984, or after more than one (1) year had
elapsedfrom petitioners' receipt of the insurers' letter of
denial on November 29, 1982. Policy Condition No. 27 of their insurance contract with Reliance
provides:
 27. Action or suit
clause. — If a claim be made and rejected and an action or suit be not commenced
either in the Insurance Commission or any court of competent jurisdiction of notice of
such rejection, orin case of arbitration taking place
as provided herein, within twelve (12) months after due
notice of theaward made by the arbitrator or arbitrators
or umpire, then the claim shall for all purposes be
deemedto have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable
hereunder. 20

On this point, the trial court ruled:

. . . However, because of the peculiar circumstances of this case, we hesitate

in concluding thatplaintiff's right to ventilate his claim in court has been barred by rea
son of the time constraint provided in the insurance contract. It is
evident that after the plaintiff had received
the letter of denial, he stillfound it necessary to be informed of the specific causes or
reasons for the denial of his claim, reasonfor which his lawyer, Atty. Dator
deemed it wise to send a letter of inquiry to the defendant which wasanswered by
defendant's Executive Vice-President in a letter dated March 30, 1983, . . .
. Assuming,gratuitously, that the letter of Executive Vice-President Mary Dee Co
dated March 30, 1983, was received by plaintiff on the same date, the period
of limitation should start to run only from said date in the spirit of fair play and equity.
. . . 21

We have perforce to reject this theory of the court below for being contrary to what we have
heretofore declared:

It is important to note the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Ang vs.
Fulton Fire Insurance Co. (2 SCRA 945 [1961]) to wit:

The condition contained in an insurance policy that claims must be pr

esented within one year
after rejection is not merely a procedural requirement but an importan
t matter essential to a prompt settlement of claims against insurance
companies as it demandsthat insurance suits be brought by
the insured while the evidence as to the
origin andcause of destruction have not yet disappeared.

In enunciating the above-cited principle, this Court had definitely

settled the rationale for the necessityof bringing suits against the Insurer
within one year from the rejection of the claim. The contention
ofthe respondents that the one-year prescriptive period does
not start to run until the petition forreconsideration had been resolved by the insurer,
runs counter to the declared purpose for requiringthat an action or suit be filed in the
Insurance Commission or in a court of competent
jurisdiction fromthe denial of the claim. To uphold respondents' contention would
contradict and defeat the very principle which this Court had laid down. Moreover,
it can easily be used by insured persons as a scheme or device to waste time
until any evidence which may be considered against them is destroyed.

xxx xxx xxx

 While in the Eagle Star case (96 Phil. 701),
this Court uses the phrase "final rejection", the
samecannot be taken to mean the rejection of a petition for reconsideration as
insisted by respondents.
Suchwas clearly not the meaning contemplated by this Court. The insurance policy in
said case providesthat the insured should file his claim first, with
the carrier and then with the insurer. The "final rejection"being referred to in said
case is the rejection by the insurance company. 22

Furthermore, assuming arguendo that petitioners felt the

legitimate need to be clarified as to the policy condition violated, there was a considerable lapse of
time from their receipt of the insurer's clarificatory letter dated March 30, 1983, up to the time the
complaint was filed in court on January 31, 1984. The one-year prescriptive period was yet
to expire on November 29, 1983, or about eight (8) months from the
receipt of the clarificatory letter, but petitioners let the
period lapse without bringing their action in court.
We accordingly find no "peculiar circumstances" sufficient to relax the enforcement of the one-
year prescriptive period and we, therefore, hold that petitioners' claim was definitely filed out of time.

WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to disturb the judgment

of respondent Court of Appeals, the same ishereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Hererra and Nocon, JJ., concur.

Paras, J., took no part.

Padilla, J., took no part.