phBar.org (Bar Exams Forum-Philippines)

At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her
own life and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she
was already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her
unborn child, were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were
vacationing. The military gave chase and after one week, they were found
in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos.
Marian and the baby she delivered were both found dead, with the baby’s
umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived.

a) Can Marian’s baby be the beneficiary of the insurance taken on
the life of the mother? (2%)

b) Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died
ahead? (1%)

c) Will Pietro, as surviving biological father of the baby, be entitled to
claim the proceeds of the life insurance on the life of Marian? (2%)



[i]Just a try. Hope my knowledge in civil law still works.

Trial Answer:
a. This question boils down to the issue of whether or not the baby is deemed born for purposes of determining its civil personality at the time it was delivered. My answer is a qualification. For all purposes favorable to it, a baby is deemed born after it has been successfully delivered, and is alive, from the mother’s womb. However, if the baby has an intrauterine life of seven (7) months, it is not deemed born if it dies within 24 hours after it is successfully delivered from the mother’s womb. With the facts at hand, I submit that the baby can become a beneficiary of the insurance taken on the life of the mother, the purpose of the law being to give to the child whatever that is favorable to it.

b. Between Marian and the baby, the law presumes the latter to have died first.

c. Yes, if filiation between Pietro and the baby be duly proved, Pietro, as the biological father of the baby, shall be entitled to claim the proceeds.

(edited). God bless to everyone

Thanks Ponente, I have already edited my answer.

The facts do not indicate whether the baby was born premature or not. Neither does it show whether the baby died within 24 hours from its delivery from maternal womb.

Here’s my suggested answer.

Marian’s unborn child can be the beneficiary of the insurance because that is favorable to the unborn child, but if only the baby had an intra-uterine life of NOT less than 7 months. If the baby had an intra-uterine life of less than 7 months, the following applies.

1. If the baby died within 24 hours following its delivery, it cannot be a beneficiary since it never became a person, birth being determinative of personality.

2.If the baby died after 24 hours from its delivery, the baby deemed to have acquired juridical personality and can therefore be a beneficiary of the insurance.

The facts of the case of bar show no indication or particular circumstance from which it may be inferred as to which of them died first. In the absence of proof, the law presumes that they died at same time.

Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, Sec. 3

(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
xxx

5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.

Considering the provisions above, I respectfully believe that the baby died first.

This forms the main basis of my answer above. This also finds support under Article 43 of the New Civil Code, with special reference to the book of Paras (Annotated). Although I agree with the fact that “in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time” as provided for under Art 43 (NCC), the same constitutes a general rule admitting of further qualifications such as those stated above.

Undeniably, the circumstance of their ages attendant in the case presented, constitutes the basis for presumptively declaring that the baby had died ahead of the mother.

Noted. But I’m not convinced.

The Rules cited above applies only to those who are not related and may not be used as a basis for transmission of rights from one to another. The facts of the case at bar show that Marian and the baby are related by consanguinity.

Pareho tayo ng sagot dito kuya Lito!

I agree with you Sir Lito. If I were to answer it, I will use the general rule that absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time.

Also, he who alleges that a party died first shall have the burden of proving it.

With due respect to Sir Manresa, but I believe there was not a transmission of rights issue between Marian and the baby here. On the contrary, it was a transmission of rights between the baby to his biological father with regard to the proceeds of the insurance. Anyway, its just my two cents...

a) Can Marian’s baby be the beneficiary of the insurance taken on
the life of the mother? (2%)

Yes, the baby is fit to be the subject of legal relations like an insurance contract. The concept of provisional personality is applicable in this case given the fact that Marian was already due to give birth which presupposes that the baby had an intrauterine life of more than 7 months. Concomitant to such fact and in the absence of evil intent, the law allows Marian to take a policy of insurance on her own life and make it payable to whomever she pleases.


b) Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died
ahead? (1%)

Marian and her baby is presumed to have died at the same time in as much as there are no available proof to the contrary. The concept of presumption of survivorship is applicable in this case simply because of maternal relations between the two.

At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her
own life and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she
was already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her
unborn child, were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were
vacationing. The military gave chase and after one week, they were found
in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos.
Marian and the baby she delivered were both found dead, with the baby’s
umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived.

Since Marian was due to give birth, the issue of the intra-uterine life of the baby is out of question. No one is due to give birth to a baby with less than seven months.

Good point, Dawn. But I disagree.

How a pregnant woman knows that she is already due to give birth? There are symptoms such as vaginal spotting, abdominal pain, pressure in the pelvis, a watery discharge from vagina, among others. These symptoms may occur in both premature and postmature birth. I believe the case at bar contemplates this scenario.