8/18/2019 Canilang v CA-concealment

1/1

THELMA VDA. DE CANILANG vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Jaime Canilang applied for a “non-medical” insurance policy with respondentGreat Pacific Life Assurance Company naming his wife, Thelma Canilang as his

eneficiary! "ut he did not disclose the fact that he was diagnosed as sufferingfrom sinus tachycardia and that he has consulted a doctor twice! Jaime wasissued an ordinary life insurance policy with the face #alue of P$%,&''!''! Jaimedied of “congesti#e heart failure”, “anemia”, and “chronic anemia”! Petitioner widow and eneficiary of the insured, filed a claim with Great Pacific which theinsurer denied upon the ground that the insured had concealed materialinformation from it! (ence, Thelma filed a complaint against Great Pacific withthe )nsurance Commission for reco#ery of the insurance proceeds!

 

ISSUE: *hether or not the non-disclosure of certain facts aout the insured+spre#ious health conditions is material to warrant the denial of the claims of Thelma Canilang

 

HELD: .! The .C agreed with the Court of Appeals that the information whichJaime Canilang failed to disclose was material to the aility of Great Pacific toestimate the proale ris/ he presented as a su0ect of life insurance! (adCanilang disclosed his #isits to his doctor, the diagnosis made and medicinesprescried y such doctor, in the insurance application, it may e reasonalyassumed that Great Pacific would ha#e made further in1uiries and would ha#e

proaly refused to issue a non-medical insurance policy or, at the #ery least,re1uired a higher premium for the same co#erage! The materiality of theinformation withheld y Great Pacific did not depend upon the state of mind of Jaime Canilang! A man+s state of mind or su0ecti#e elief is not capale of proof in our 0udicial process, e2cept through proof of e2ternal acts or failure to act fromwhich inferences as to his su0ecti#e elief may e reasonaly drawn! 3either does materiality depend upon the actual or physical e#ents which ensure!4ateriality relates rather to the “proale and reasonale influence of the facts”upon the party to whom the communication should ha#e een made, inassessing the ris/ in#ol#ed in ma/ing or omitting to ma/e further in1uiries and inaccepting the application for insurance5 that “proale and reasonale influence

of the facts” concealed must, of course, e determined o0ecti#ely, y the 0udgeultimately! *(6786, the Petition for 6e#iew is 93)9 for lac/ of merit andthe 9ecision of the Court of Appeals dated $: 8ctoer $%;% in C!A!-G!6! .P 3o!';:%: is herey A77)649! 3o pronouncement as to the costs!