05 HEIRS OF LORETO MARAMAG VS. MARAMAG (Gervacio)
Eva was not designated as an insurance policy beneficiary
GR 181132 June 5, 2009
Topic: Beneficiaries
Petitioners: Heirs of Loreto Maramag, represented by surviving spouse Vicenta
Pangilinan Maramag
Respondents: Eva De Guzman Maramag (concubine), Odessa, Karl, Brian and
Trisha (all surnamed Maramag; illegitimate children; named beneficiaries of
Loreto), Insular Life Assurance Company and Great Pacific Assurance Corporation
(GREPALIFE)
Doctrine: GR: 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. XPN: Where the insurance contract was intended to
benefit third persons who are not parties to the same in the form of a favorable
stipulation or indemnity. In such case, the third party may directly sue and claim
from the insurer.
FACTS
1. Petitioners alleged:
a. Petitioners were the legitimate wife and children of Loreto
Maramag (Loreto), while respondents were Loreto’s illegitimate
family.
b. Eva de Guzman Maramag (Eva) was a concubine and a suspect in
the killing of Loreto, thus, she is disqualified to receive any
proceeds from his insurance policies from Insular and Great
Pacific Life Insurance Corporation (GREPALIFE).
c. The illegitimate children of Loreto 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 the illegitimate
children were inofficious and should be reduced.
d. Petitioners could not be deprived of their legitimes, which should
be satisfied.
e. They alleged that part of the insurance proceeds had already been
release in favor of the three illegitimate children.
f. They argued that since the share of Eva and portions of the share
of the illegitimate children should be awarded to them.
2. Insular’s answer:
a. It admitted that Loreto misrepresented Eva as his legitimate wife
and their children as legitimate, and that they filed their claims
for insurance proceeds of the insurance policies;
b. When it ascertained that Eva was not the legal wife, it
disqualified as a beneficiary and divided the proceeds among the
illegitimate children.
c. Claimed that it was bound to honor the insurance policies
designating the children of Loreta with Eva as beneficiaries
pursuant to Section 53 of the Insurance Code.
3. Grepalife:
a.
b. Claims filed by Odessa, Karl Brian, and Trisha were denied
because Loreto was ineligible for insurance due to a
misrepresentation in his application form that he was born on
December 10, 1963 (hence he is not more than 65 years old when
he signed it in September 2001)
c. Case was premature, there being no claim filed by the legitimate
family
d. Law on succession does not apply where the designation of
insurance beneficiaries is clear.
RTC: in its Resolution, ruled in favor of defendants Insular and Grepalife. They
argued that the petition filed by petitioners FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION.
A. The lower court argued that since defendants are the ones named as the
primary beneficiaries in the insurances and that there is no showing that
the plaintiffs were also included as beneficiaries, the insurance proceeds
shall exclusively be paid to them. This is because the beneficiary has a
vested right to the indemnity unless the insured reserves the right to
change the beneficiary.
B. The beneficiary in a contract if insurance is not the donee spoken in the
law of donation.
C. The rules on testamentary succession cannot apply here, for the insurance
indemnity does not partake of a donation.
D. As such, the insurance indemnity cannot be considered as an advance of
the inheritance which can be subject to collection.
E. However, petitioners still have a remedy. The law provides that if a
concubine is made the beneficiary, it is believed that the insurance
contract will still remain valid, but the indemnity must go to the legal heirs
and not the concubine, for evidently, what is prohibited is the naming of
the improper beneficiary.
F. In such case, the action for the declaration of nullity may be brought by
the spouse of the donor or donee, and the guilt of the donor and done may
be proved by preponderance of evidence.
G. Only in cases where there are no beneficiaries or when the only designated
beneficiary is disqualified that the proceeds should be paid to the estate of
the insured.
H. Distribution of the insurance proceeds is governed by the Insurance Code,
Civil Code provisions are irrelevant and inapplicable.
I. Eva was never designated as a beneficiary, but only Odessa, Karl Brian
and Trisha – upheld dismissal as to the illegitimate children.
J. Loreto’s misrepresentation is premature
K. Appropriate action may be filed only upon denial of the claim of the named
beneficiaries for the insurance proceeds by GREPALIFE.
CA: dismissed the appeal of petitioners for lack of jurisdiction and for failing to file
within the reglamentary period; granted the MRs of GREPALIFE and Insular Life.
ISSUE: WON members of the legitimate family are entitled to the proceeds of the
insurance for the concubine (NO)
HELD: NO. In this regard, the assailed June 16, 2005 Resolution of the trial court
should be upheld. In the same light, the Decision of the CA dated January 8, 2008
should be sustained. Indeed, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the appeal; the issue of failure to state a cause of action is a question
of law and not of fact, there being no findings of fact in the first place.

RULING
1. It is clear from the petition that although petitioners are the legitimate
heirs of Loreto, they were not named as beneficiaries in the insurance
policies issued by Insular and Grepalife. They are not entitled to a
favorable judgment in light of Article 2011 of the Civil Code which
expressly provides that insurance contracts shall be governed by special
laws i.e. the Insurance Code. Section 53 of the Insurance Code states:
“SEC. 53 The insurance proceeds shall be applied exclusively to
the proper interest of the person in whose name or for whose
benefit it is made unless otherwise specified in the policy.”
2. GR: 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. XPN: Where the insurance contract was
intended to benefit third persons who are not parties to the same in the
form of a favorable stipulation or indemnity. In such case, the third party
may directly sue and claim from the insurer.
3. Petitioners are third parties to the insurance contracts with Insular and
Grepalife, and thus are not entitled to the proceeds thereof.
4. The revocation of Eva as a beneficiary and her disqualification are of no
moment since the designation of the illegitimate children as beneficiaries
is valid.
a. No legal proscription exists in naming as beneficiaries the
children of illicit relationships by the insured.
5. The shares of Eva in the insurance proceeds must be awarded to the
illegitimate children, the designated beneficiaries to the exclusion of
petitioners.
6. It is only in cases where the insured has not designated any beneficiary or
when the only designated beneficiary is disqualified that the proceeds
should be paid to the estate of the insured.

WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.