Del Val v. Del Val
29 Phil 535
> Petitioners and private respondents are brothers and Sisters and are the only heirs and next of kin of Gregorio del Val who died intestate.
> It was found out that the deceased took out insurance on his life for the sum of 40T and made it payable to private respondents as sole beneficiary.
> After Gregorio’s death, Andres collected the proceeds of the policy.
> Of the said policy, Andres paid 18T to redeem some real property which Gregorio had sold to third persons during his lifetime.
> Said redemption of the property was made by Andres’ laywer in the name of Andres and the petitioners. (Accdg to Andres, said redemption in the name of Petitioners and himself was without his knowledge and that since the redemption, petitioners have been in possession of the property)
> Petitioners now contend that the amount of the insurance policy belonged to the estate of the deceased and not to Andres personally.
> Pet filed a complaint for partition of property including the insurance proceeds
> Andress claims that he is the sole owner of the proceeds and prayed that he be declared:
> Sole owner of the real property, redeemed with the use of the insurance proceeds and its remainder;
> Petitioners to account for the use and occupation of the premises.
Whether or not the petitioners have a right to the insurance proceeds?
The contract of life insurance is a special contract and the destination of the proceeds thereof is determined by special laws which deal exclusively with the subject. Our civil code has no provisions which relate directly and specifically to life-insurance contracts of to the destination of life-insurance proceeds that subject is regulated exclusively by the Code of Commerce. Thus, contention of petitioners that proceeds should be considered as a dontation or gift and should be included in the estate of the deceased is UNTENABLE.
Since the repurchase has been made n the names of all the heirs instead of the defendant alone, petitioners claim that the property belongs to the heirs in common and not to the defendant alone. The SC held that if it is established by evidence that that was his intention and that the real estate was delivered to the plaintiffs with that understanding, then it is probable that their contention is correct and that they are entitled to share equally with the defendant. HOWEVER, it appears from the evidence that the conveyances were taken in the name of the plaintiffs without the knowledge and consent of Andres, or that it was not his intention to make a gift to them of real estate, when it belongs to him.