Go vs. Redfern, GR 47705, 25 April 1941

Note: Original decision in Spanish [Rough translation]

Facts:
In October 1937, Edward K. Redfern obtained an insurance policy against accidents from the International Assurance Co, Ltd. On 31 August 1938, Redfern died from an accident. The mother of the deceased, presenting the necessary evidence of the death of Redfern, sought to claim the proceeds of the insurance policy from the insurance company. The company, however, denied such claim, on the ground that the insurance policy was amended on 22 November 1937 to include another beneficiary, Concordia Go. Hence, an action was filed to determine who has the right to collect the insurance proceeds of the deceased Redfern. The mother claimed that the addition of the co-beneficiary is illegal. Go, on her part, alleged the contrary. The trial court ruled in favor of Angela Redfern, the mother. Go appealed.

Issue:
Whether the addition of Go’s name as co-beneficiary can be allowed for her share in the insurance proceeds

Held:
When designated in a policy, the beneficiary acquires a right of which he cannot be deprived of without his consent, unless the right has been reserved specifically to the insured to modify the policy. The same doctrine was enunciated by the Court in the cases of Gercio vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (48 Phil. 55) and Insular Life vs. Suva (34 Off. Gaz. 861). Thus, unless the insured has reserved specifically the right to change or to modify the policy, with respect to the beneficiary, said policy constitutes an acquired right of the beneficiary, which cannot be modified except with the consent of the latter. Herein, it is admitted that Redfern did not reserve expressly his right to change or modify the policy. Change implies the idea of an alteration. The addition of Go's name as one of the beneficiaries of the policy constitutes change as all addition is an alteration. The addition of Go's name changed the policy inasmuch as there are two beneficiaries instead of one, and thus in effect the original beneficiary cannot receive the full amount of the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment in all of its parts, with costs against Go.