MAKATI TUSCANY CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS (PHILS.), INC., RES…

This case involves a
purely legal question: whether payment by installment of the
premiums due on an insurance policy
invalidates the contract of
insurance, in view of Sec. 77 of P.D. 612, otherwise known as the Insurance
Code, as amended, which provides:

“SECTION 77. An
insurer is entitled to the payment of the premium as soon as the thing is
exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of
insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until
the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an
industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies.”

Sometime in early 1982, private respondent American Home
Assurance Co. (A H A C), represented by American International Underwriters
(Phils.), Inc., issued in favor of petitioner Makati Tuscany Condominium
Corporation (TUSCANY) Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210452 on the latter’s
building and premises, for a period beginning 1 March 1982 and ending 1 March
1983, with a total premium of P466,103.05. The premium was paid on installments on 12 March 1982, 20 May 1982, 21
June 1982 and 16 November 1982, all of which were accepted by private respondent.

On 10 February 1983, private respondent issued to petitioner
Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210596, which replaced and renewed the previous
policy, for a term covering 1 March 1983 to 1 March 1984. The premium in the amount of P466,103.05 was
again paid on installments on 13 April 1983, 13 July 1983, 3 August 1983, 9 September 1983, and 21 November
1983. All payments were likewise
accepted by private respondent.

On 20 January 1984, the policy was again renewed and private
respondent issued to petitioner
Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210651 for the period 1 March 1984 to 1 March
1985. On this renewed policy,
petitioner made two installment payments, both accepted by private respondent,
the first on 6 February 1984 for P52,000.00 and the second, on 6 June 1984 for
P100,000.00. Thereafter, petitioner refused to pay the balance of the
premium.

Consequently, private respondent filed an action to recover the
unpaid balance of P314,103.05 for Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210651.

In its answer with counterclaim,
petitioner admitted the issuance of Insurance Policy No. AH-CPP-9210651. It explained that it discontinued the
payment of premiums because the policy did not contain a credit clause in its
favor and the receipts for the installment payments covering the policy for
1984-85, as well as the two (2) previous policies, stated the following
reservations:

“2. Acceptance of this payment shall not waive
any of the company rights to deny liability on any claim under the policy
arising before such payments or after the expiration of the credit clause of the policy; and

“3. Subject to no loss prior to premium
payment. If there be any loss such is
not covered.”

Petitioner further
claimed that the policy was never binding and valid, and no risk attached to
the policy. It then pleaded a
counterclaim for P152,000.00 for the premiums already paid for 1984-85, and in
its answer with amended counterclaim, sought the refund of P924,206.10
representing the premium
payments for 1982-85.

After some incidents,
petitioner and private respondent moved for summary judgment.

On 8 October 1987, the
trial court dismissed the complaint and the counterclaim upon the following
findings:

“While it is true that the receipts issued to the defendant
contained the aforementioned reservations, it is equally true that payment of
the premiums of the three aforementioned policies (being sought to be refunded)
were made during the lifetime or
term of said policies, hence, it could
not be said, inspite of the reservations, that no risk attached under the
policies. Consequently, defendant’s
counterclaim for refund is not justified.

“As regards the unpaid premiums on Insurance Policy No.
AH-CPP-9210651, in view of the reservation in the receipts ordinarily issued by
the plaintiff on premium payments the only plausible conclusion is that
plaintiff has no right to demand their payment after the lapse of the term of
said policy on March 1, 1985. Therefore, the defendant was justified in refusing to pay the
same.”^[1]

Both parties appealed
from the judgment of the trial court. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision^[2] modifying that of the trial court by ordering herein petitioner to pay the balance of the premiums due on
Policy No. AH-CPP-921-651, or P314,103.05 plus legal interest until fully paid,
and affirming the denial of the counterclaim. The appellate court thus explained –

“The obligation to pay premiums when due is ordinarily an
indivisible obligation to pay the entire premium. Here, the parties herein agreed to make the premiums payable in
installments, and there is no pretense that the parties never envisioned to
make the insurance contract binding between them. It was renewed for two succeeding years, the second and third
policies being a renewal/replacement for the previous one. And the insured never informed the insurer
that it was terminating the policy because the terms were unacceptable.

“While it may be true that under Section 77 of the Insurance
Code, the parties may not agree to make the insurance contract valid and
binding without payment of premiums, there is nothing in said section which
suggests that the parties may not
agree to allow payment of the premiums in installment, or to consider the
contract as valid and binding upon payment of the first premium. Otherwise, we would allow the insurer to
renege on its liability under the contract, had a loss incurred (sic) before
completion of payment of the entire premium, despite its voluntary acceptance
of partial payments, a result eschewed by basic considerations of fairness and
equity.

“To our mind, the insurance
contract became valid and binding upon payment of the first premium, and the
plaintiff could not have denied liability on the ground that payment was not
made in full, for the reason that it agreed to accept installment payments. x x x”^[3]

Petitioner now asserts that its payment by installment of the
premiums for the insurance policies for 1982, 1983 and 1984 invalidated said
policies because of the provisions of Sec. 77 of the Insurance Code, as
amended, and by the conditions stipulated by the insurer in its receipts,
disclaiming liability for loss occurring before payment of premiums.

It argues that where the premium is not actually paid in full,
the policy would only be effective if there is an acknowledgment in the policy
of the receipt of premium pursuant to Sec. 78 of the Insurance Code. The absence of an express acknowledgment in
the policies of such receipt of the corresponding premium payments, and
petitioner’s failure to pay said premiums on or before the effective dates of
said policies rendered them invalid. Petitioner thus concludes that there cannot be a perfected contract of
insurance upon mere partial payment of the premiums because under Sec. 77 of
the Insurance Code, no contract of insurance is valid and binding unless the
premium thereof has been paid, notwithstanding any agreement to the
contrary. As a consequence, petitioner
seeks a refund of all premium payments made on the alleged invalid insurance
policies.

We hold that the subject
policies are valid even if the premiums were paid on installments. The records clearly show that petitioner and
private respondent intended subject insurance policies to be binding and
effective notwithstanding the staggered payment of the premiums. The initial insurance contract entered into
in 1982 was renewed in 1983, then in
1984. In those three (3) years, the insurer accepted all the
installment payments. Such acceptance
of payments speaks loudly of the insurer’s intention to honor the policies it
issued to petitioner. Certainly, basic
principles of equity and fairness would not allow the insurer to continue
collecting and accepting the premiums, although paid on installments, and later
deny liability on the lame excuse that the premiums were not prepaid in full.

We therefore sustain the Court
of Appeals. We quote with approval the
well-reasoned findings and conclusion of the
appellate court contained in its Resolution denying the motion to reconsider
its Decision –

“While the import of Section 77 is that prepayment of premiums
is strictly required as a condition to the validity of the contract, We are not
prepared to rule that the request to make installment payments duly approved by
the insurer, would prevent the entire contract of insurance from going into
effect despite payment and acceptance of the initial premium or first
installment. Section 78 of the
Insurance Code in effect allows waiver by the insurer of the condition of
prepayment by making an acknowledgment in the insurance policy of receipt of
premium as conclusive evidence of payment so
far as to make the policy
binding despite the fact that premium is actually unpaid. Section 77 merely precludes the parties from
stipulating that the policy is valid even if premiums are not paid, but does not expressly prohibit an agreement granting credit extension, and such an agreement is not
contrary to morals, good customs, public order or public policy (De
Leon, the Insurance Code, at p. 175). So is an understanding to allow insured to pay premiums in installments
not so proscribed. At the very least,
both parties should be deemed in estoppel to question the arrangement they have
voluntarily accepted.”^[4]

The reliance by
petitioner on Arce v. Capital Surety and Insurance Co.^[5] is
unavailing because the facts therein are substantially different from those in
the case at bar. In Arce, no payment was made by
the insured at all despite the grace period given. In the case before Us, petitioner paid the initial installment
and thereafter made staggered payments resulting in full payment of the 1982
and 1983 insurance policies. For the
1984 policy, petitioner paid two (2) installments although
it refused to pay the balance.

It appearing from the
peculiar circumstances that the parties actually intended to make the three (3)
insurance contracts valid, effective and binding, petitioner may not be allowed
to renege on its obligation to pay the balance of the premium after the
expiration of the whole term of the third policy (No. AH-CPP-9210651) in
March 1985. Moreover, as correctly
observed by the appellate court, where the risk is entire and the contract is indivisible, the insured is not entitled to a refund of the premiums
paid if the insurer was exposed to the risk insured for any period, however
brief or momentary.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, the same is AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Padilla, and
Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Medialdea, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 85.

^[2]
Penned by MMe. Justice Minerva P.
Gonzaga-Reyes, concurred by Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco and Mme. Justice Salome A. Montoya.

^[3]
Decision, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 36-37.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 41-42.

^[5]
No. L-28501, September 30,
1982, 117 SCRA 63.