GR L 47705; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47705; April 25, 1941
Concordia Go, Petitioner, vs. Angela Redfern and The International Assurance Co., Ltd., Respondents.
FACTS
In October 1937, Edward K. Redfern obtained an accident insurance policy from The International Assurance Co., Ltd. On August 31, 1938, Redfern died as a result of an accident. The respondent, Angela Redfern (the mother of the deceased), submitted the necessary proofs of death and sought to collect the policy amount from the insurance company. However, the company refused to make full payment because the policy had been amended on November 22, 1937, by the addition of a co-beneficiary, the petitioner Concordia Go. This led to the present action to determine whether the respondent Angela Redfern has the right to the full payment of the insurance policy amount. The respondent contends that the addition of the co-beneficiary is illegal, while the petitioner asserts the contrary.
ISSUE
The issue to be resolved is whether the amendment adding Concordia Go as a co-beneficiary to the insurance policy is valid or not.
RULING
The Court ruled that the amendment is not valid. The established doctrine, as cited in Wallace v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. and affirmed by this Court in Garcia v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada and Insular Life v. Suva, is that upon the issuance of a policy, the beneficiary acquires a vested right of which they cannot be deprived without their consent, unless the insured has expressly reserved the right to modify the policy. In this case, it is admitted that the insured, Edward K. Redfern, did not expressly reserve the faculty to change or modify the policy. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the addition of her name did not constitute a change. The Court held that change implies alteration, and every addition is an alteration. Therefore, adding the petitioner’s name altered or changed the policy both in form (by having two beneficiaries instead of one) and in substance (as the original beneficiary would not receive the entire policy amount). Consequently, the appealed judgment, which favored Angela Redfern’s entitlement to the full amount, was affirmed in all respects. Costs were adjudged against the petitioner.