Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GAISANO CAGAYAN v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181163 2013-07-24	ASIAN TERMINALS v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO. VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Foremost, the Court holds that petitioner Philam has adequately established the basis of its claim against petitioners ATI and Westwind. Philam, as insurer, was subrogated to the rights of the consignee, Universal Motors Corporation, pursuant to the Subrogation Receipt executed by the latter in favor of the former. The right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.[30] Petitioner Philam's action finds support in Article 2207 of the Civil Code, which provides as follows: 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. x x x.
	GR No. 159213 2013-07-03	VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY BERSAMIN, J.
Consistent with the pertinent law and jurisprudence, therefore, Exhibit I was already enough by itself to prove the payment of P7,455,421.00 as the full settlement of Caltex's claim.[28] The payment made to Caltex as the insured being thereby duly documented, respondent became subrogated as a matter of course pursuant to Article 2207 of the Civil Code. In legal contemplation, subrogation is the "substitution of another person in the place of the creditor, to whose rights he succeeds in relation to the debt;" and is "independent of any mere contractual relations between the parties to be affected by it, and is broad enough to cover every instance in which one party is required to pay a debt for which another is primarily answerable, and which in equity and conscience ought to be discharged by the latter."[29]
	GR NO. 146555 2007-07-03	JOSE C. CORDOVA v. REYES DAWAY LIM BERNARDO LINDO ROSALES LAW OFFICES CORONA, J.
Petitioner's CSPI shares were specific or determinate movable properties.[20] But after they were sold, the money raised from the sale became generic[21] and were commingled with the cash and other assets of Philfinance. Unlike shares of stock, money is a generic thing. It is designated merely by its class or genus without any particular designation or physical segregation from all others of the same class.[22] This means that once a certain amount is added to the cash balance, one can no longer pinpoint the specific amount included which then becomes part of a whole mass of money.