Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 117 views

    Heirs Vs Maramag

    Uploaded by

    Mir Solaiman
    Petitioners argued they were entitled to insurance proceeds from their father Loreto's policies, as his legitimate heirs, instead of the named beneficiaries who were Loreto's concubine and illegitimate children. However, the court ruled that only the insured or named beneficiaries are entitled to insurance proceeds. As third parties to the contracts, petitioners had no legal right to the proceeds. While the concubine's share may be forfeited, it must go to the illegitimate children who were validly designated as beneficiaries, not the legitimate heirs. Insurance proceeds will only go to the estate if no beneficiary is named or those named are legally disqualified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Heirs Vs Maramag

    Uploaded by

    Mir Solaiman
    117 views1 page
    Petitioners argued they were entitled to insurance proceeds from their father Loreto's policies, as his legitimate heirs, instead of the named beneficiaries who were Loreto's concubine and illegitimate children. However, the court ruled that only the insured or named beneficiaries are entitled to insurance proceeds. As third parties to the contracts, petitioners had no legal right to the proceeds. While the concubine's share may be forfeited, it must go to the illegitimate children who were validly designated as beneficiaries, not the legitimate heirs. Insurance proceeds will only go to the estate if no beneficiary is named or those named are legally disqualified.

    Original Description:

    Insurance Law Case Digest

    Original Title

    49. Heirs vs Maramag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners argued they were entitled to insurance proceeds from their father Loreto's policies, as his legitimate heirs, instead of the named beneficiaries who were Loreto's concubine and illegitimate children. However, the court ruled that only the insured or named beneficiaries are entitled to insurance proceeds. As third parties to the contracts, petitioners had no legal right to the proceeds. While the concubine's share may be forfeited, it must go to the illegitimate children who were validly designated as beneficiaries, not the legitimate heirs. Insurance proceeds will only go to the estate if no beneficiary is named or those named are legally disqualified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    117 views1 page

    Heirs Vs Maramag

    Uploaded by

    Mir Solaiman
    Petitioners argued they were entitled to insurance proceeds from their father Loreto's policies, as his legitimate heirs, instead of the named beneficiaries who were Loreto's concubine and illegitimate children. However, the court ruled that only the insured or named beneficiaries are entitled to insurance proceeds. As third parties to the contracts, petitioners had no legal right to the proceeds. While the concubine's share may be forfeited, it must go to the illegitimate children who were validly designated as beneficiaries, not the legitimate heirs. Insurance proceeds will only go to the estate if no beneficiary is named or those named are legally disqualified.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    49.

    Heirs of Loreto Maramag vs Maramag 2009


    Facts: The petition alleged that: (1) petitioners were the legitimate wife and children of Loreto Maramag
    (Loreto), while respondents were Loreto's illegitimate family; (2) Eva de Guzman Maramag (Eva) was a
    concubine of Loreto and a suspect in the killing of the latter, thus, she is disqualified to receive any proceeds
    from his insurance policies from Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. (Insular) and Great Pacific Life Assurance
    Corporation (Grepalife);(3) the illegitimate children of Loreto Odessa, Karl Brian, and Trisha Angelie were
    entitled only to one-half of the legitime of the legitimate children, thus, the proceeds released to Odessa and
    those to be released to Karl Brian and Trisha Angelie were inofficious and should be reduced; and (4)
    petitioners could not be deprived of their legitimes, which should be satisfied first.
    Although petitioners are the legitimate heirs of Loreto, they were not named as beneficiaries in the insurance
    policies issued by Insular and Grepalife. They also argued that pursuant to Section 12 of the Insurance Code,
    Eva's share in the proceeds should be forfeited in their favor, the former having brought about the death of
    Loreto.
    Issue: Are the members of the legitimate family entitled to the proceeds of the insurance for the concubine?
    Ruling: No. only persons entitled to claim the insurance proceeds are either the insured, if still alive; or the
    beneficiary, if the insured is already deceased, upon the maturation of the policy. The exception to this rule is
    a situation where the insurance contract was intended to benefit third persons who are not parties to the
    same in the form of favorable stipulations or indemnity. In such a case, third parties may directly sue and claim
    from the insurer.
    Petitioners are third parties to the insurance contracts with Insular and Grepalife and, thus, are not entitled to
    the proceeds thereof. Accordingly, respondents Insular and Grepalife have no legal obligation to turn over the
    insurance proceeds to petitioners. The revocation of Eva as a beneficiary in one policy and her disqualification
    as such in another are of no moment considering that the designation of the illegitimate children as
    beneficiaries in Loreto's insurance policies remains valid. Because no legal proscription exists in naming as
    beneficiaries the children of illicit relationships by the insured, the shares of Eva in the insurance proceeds,
    whether forfeited by the court in view of the prohibition on donations under Article 739 of the Civil Code or by
    the insurers themselves for reasons based on the insurance contracts, must be awarded to the said
    illegitimate children, the designated beneficiaries, to the exclusion of petitioners. It is only in cases where the
    insured has not designated any beneficiary, or when the designated beneficiary is disqualified by law to
    receive the proceeds, that the insurance policy proceeds shall redound to the benefit of the estate of the
    insured.

    You might also like