Great Pacific Life vs. CA Digest

Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. vs. CA

Concealment exists where the assured had knowledge of a fact material to the risk, and  honesty, good faith, and fair dealing requires that he should communicate it to the assured, but he designedly and intentionally withholds the same. cont ntra ract ct of gr group oup li life fe in insu sura ranc nce e wa was s ex exec ecut uted ed be betw twee een n Gr Grea eatt Pa Paci cifi fic c Li Life fe Facts: A co  Assurance Corporation (Grepalife) and Development Bank of te Pilippines (DBP)! Grepalife agreed to insure te lives of eligible ousing loan mortgagors of DBP! "n ## $ovember #%&' Dr! ilfredo Leuterio a p*sician and a ousing debtor of DBP applied for  membersip in te group life insurance plan! +n an application form Dr! Leuterio answered ,uestions concerning is ealt condition as follows- ./! 0ave *ou ever ad or consulted a p*sic p* sician ian for a ea eart rt con condit dition ion ig ig  blo blood od pres pressur sure e can cancer cer dia diabet betes es lun lung g kid kidne* ne* or  stom st omac ac  di diso sord rder er or an* ot ote err p* p*si sica call im impa pair irme ment nt1 1 Ans nswe werr- $o $o!! +f so gi give ve de deta tail ils s  22222222222! &! Are *ou now to te best of *our knowledge in good ealt1 Answer- 3 x 4 5es 3 4 $o!. "n #6 $ovember #%&' Grepalife issued Certificate B7#&66& as insurance coverage of Dr! Leuterio to te extent of is DBP mortgage indebtedness amounting to P&89::!::! "n 8 August #%&; Dr! Leuterio died due to .massive cerebral emorrage!. Conse, Con se,uent uentl* l* DBP sub submit mitted ted a deat deat  cla claim im to Gre Grepal palife ife!! Gre Grepal palife ife den denied ied te cla claim im alleging tat Dr! Leuterio was not p*sicall* ealt* wen e applied for an insurance coverage on #6 $ovember $o vember #%&'! Grepalife insisted tat Dr! Leuterio did not d isclose e ad been suffering from *pertension wic caused is deat! Allegedl* suc nondisclosure constituted concealment tat ! Leuterio filed a complaint wit te ?egional @rial Court of =isamis "riental Branc #& against Grepalife for .pecific Performance wit Damages!. During te trial Dr! 0ernando =e
knowledge of Dr! Leuterios an* previous ospital confinement! Dr! Leuterios deat certificate stated tat *pertension was onl* .te possible cause of deat!. @e widows statement as to te medical istor* of er usband was due to er unreliable recollection of events! 0ence te statement of te p*sician was properl* considered b* te trial court as earsa*! @e insured Dr! Leuterio ad answered in is insurance application tat e was in good ealt and tat e ad not consulted a doctor or an* of te enumerated ailments including *pertension wen e died te attending p*sician ad certified in te deat certificate tat te former died of cerebral emorrage probabl* secondar* to *pertension! Contrar* to Grepalifes allegations tere was no sufficient proof tat te insured ad suffered from *pertension! Aside