G.R. No. 32889 , 32890, 32891, November 20, 1930
ULPIANO SANTA ANA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Ulpiano Santa Ana owned a house in Pasig, Rizal. He obtained multiple fire insurance policies on the same property from different companies: Phoenix Assurance Co. (P3,000) and Guardian Assurance Co. (P6,000) on October 1, 1925; Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Co. (P3,000) and Commercial Union Assurance Co. (P3,000) on December 16, 1925; and Filipinas Compania de Seguros (P6,000) on September 20, 1926. He later mortgaged the house to Rafael Garcia, endorsing the first two policies to him. On October 1, 1926, a fire destroyed the house. Santa Ana filed claims with all insurers, but they refused payment, alleging fraud (over-valuation), lack of notice of other insurances, and that the fire was intentional. Santa Ana and Garcia (as mortgagee) filed separate actions against the insurers. The trial court consolidated the cases and absolved all defendant insurance companies.

ISSUE

Whether the fire insurance policies are void due to Santa Ana’s failure to notify the insurers of the existence of other insurance policies on the same property, as required by the terms of the policies.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding the policies null and void. The policies contained a clause (in both English and Spanish) requiring the insured to declare in writing any other insurance on the property and to have such declaration endorsed on the policy; failure to do so would render the policy null and void. The Court found that Santa Ana failed to provide the required notice to each insurer regarding the other existing policies. While Santa Ana claimed he gave verbal notice, his testimony was contradicted by the agents of the insurance companies. The Court emphasized that such notice is a basic and essential condition for the validity of the policies. Since the lack of notice was decisive, the Court did not need to address the other issues raised, such as the alleged over-valuation of the property.