GAISANO VS INSURANCE

Lessons Applicable: Existing Interest (Insurance)

Laws Applicable: Article 1504,Article 1263, Article 2207 of the Civil
Code, Section 13 of Insurance Code

FACTS:

 Intercapitol Marketing Corporation (IMC) is the maker of Wrangler Blue Jeans. while Levi
Strauss (Phils.) Inc. (LSPI) is the local distributor of products bearing
trademarks owned by Levi Strauss & Co
 IMC and LSPI separately obtained from Insurance Company of North America fire insurance
policies for their book debt endorsements related to their ready-made clothing
materials which have been sold or delivered to various customers and
dealers of the Insured anywhere in the Philippines which are unpaid 45
days after the time of the loss
 February 25, 1991: Gaisano Superstore Complex in Cagayan de Oro City, owned by Gaisano
Cagayan, Inc., containing the ready-made clothing materials sold and delivered by IMC and
LSPI was consumed by fire.
 February 4, 1992: Insurance Company of North America filed a complaint for
damages against Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. alleges that IMC and LSPI filed
their claims under their respective fire insurance policies which it paid
thus it was subrogated to their rights
 Gaisano Cagayan, Inc: not be held liable because it was destroyed due to
fortuities event or force majeure
 RTC: IMC and LSPI retained ownership of the delivered goods until fully
paid, it must bear the loss (res perit domino)
 CA: Reversed - sales invoices is an exception under Article 1504 (1) of
the Civil Code to res perit domino
ISSUE: W/N Insurance Company of North America can claim against Gaisano Cagayan
for the debt that was isnured

HELD: YES. petition is partly GRANTED. order to pay P535,613 is DELETED

 insurance policy is clear that the subject of the insurance is the book debts and NOT goods
sold and delivered to the customers and dealers of the insured
 ART. 1504. Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain at the seller's risk until the ownership
therein is transferred to the buyer, but when the ownership therein is transferred to the buyer
the goods are at the buyer's risk whether actual delivery has been made or not, except that:

(1) Where delivery of the goods has been made to the buyer or to a bailee for the buyer, in
pursuance of the contract and the ownership in the goods has been retained by the seller
merely to secure performance by the buyer of his obligations under the contract, the goods
are at the buyer's risk from the time of such delivery;
 IMC and LSPI did not lose complete interest over the goods. They have an insurable interest
until full payment of the value of the delivered goods. Unlike the civil law concept of res
perit domino, where ownership is the basis for consideration of who bears the risk of loss, in
property insurance, one's interest is not determined by concept of title, but whether insured
has substantial economic interest in the property
 Section 13 of our Insurance Code defines insurable interest as "every interest in property,
whether real or personal, or any relation thereto, or liability in respect thereof, of such nature
that a contemplated peril might directly damnify the insured." Parenthetically, under Section
14 of the same Code, an insurable interest in property may consist in: (a) an existing interest;
(b) an inchoate interest founded on existing interest; or (c) an expectancy, coupled with an
existing interest in that out of which the expectancy arises.
 Anyone has an insurable interest in property who derives a benefit from its existence or
would suffer loss from its destruction.
 it is sufficient that the insured is so situated with reference to the property that he would be
liable to loss should it be injured or destroyed by the peril against which it is insured
 an insurable interest in property does not necessarily imply a property interest in, or a lien
upon, or possession of, the subject
 matter of the insurance, and neither the title nor a beneficial interest is
requisite to the existence of such an interest
 insurance in this case is not for loss of goods by fire but for petitioner's accounts with IMC
and LSPI that remained unpaid 45 days after the fire - obligation is pecuniary in
nature
 obligor should be held exempt from liability when the loss occurs thru a fortuitous event only
holds true when the obligation consists in the delivery of a determinate thing and there is no
stipulation holding him liable even in case of fortuitous event
 Article 1263 of the Civil Code in an obligation to deliver a generic thing,
the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not
extinguish the obligation (Genus nunquan perit)
 The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not only the relationship of
respondent as insurer and IMC as the insured, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance
claim
 Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the
insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract
complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against
the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract.
 As to LSPI, no subrogation receipt was offered in evidence.
 Failure to substantiate the claim of subrogation is fatal to petitioner's
case for recovery of the amount of P535,613