Insular Life vs. Ebrado
80 SCRA 181
> Buenaventura Ebrado was issued al life plan by Insular Company. He designated Capriona as his beneficiary, referring to her as his wife.
> The insured then died and Carponia tried to claim the proceeds of the said plan.
> She admitted to being only the common law wife of the insured.
> Pascuala, the legal wife, also filed a claim asserting her right as the legal wife. The company then filed an action for interpleader.
Whether or not the common law wife named as beneficiary can collect the proceeds.
The civil code prohibitions on donations made between persons guilty of adulterous concubinage applies to insurance contracts. On matters not specifically provided for by the Insurance Law, the general rules on Civil law shall apply. A life insurance policy is no different from a civil donation as far as the beneficiary is concerned, since both are founded on liberality.
Why was the common law wife not ed to collect the proceeds despite the fact that she was the beneficiary? Isn’t this against Sec. 53?
It is true that SC went against Sec. 53. However, Sec. 53 is NOT the only provision that the SC had to consider. Art. 739 and 2012 of CC prohibit persons who are guilty of adultery or concubinage from being beneficiaries of the life insurance policies of the persons with whom they committed adultery or concubinage. If the SC used only Sec. 53, it would have gone against Art. 739 and 2012.