Persons Prohibited from Being Designated as Beneficiaries (Article 2012 in relation to Article 739, New Civil Code)

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.

AT A GLANCE:

Any person who is forbidden from receiving any donation under Article 739 cannot be named beneficiary of a life insurance policy by the person who cannot make any donation to him, according to said article. (Article 2012, New Civil Code of the Philippines)

Article 739 provides that the following donations shall be void:

1. Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation;
2. Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense, in consideration thereof;
3. Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants, by reason of his office. (Article 739, New Civil Code of the Philippines)

Under the New Civil Code, there are specific limitations on who can be named as beneficiaries. Article 739, in relation to Article 2012, outlines these prohibitions. To wit:

Between people guilty of adultery or concubinage.

This means if a person is caught cheating on their spouse (either by having an affair or keeping a concubine), any gifts or donations they make to their partner or anyone else involved in the affair are considered invalid. Just like how gifts between people involved in an affair are invalid, the cheating spouse cannot name their partner in the affair as a beneficiary of their life insurance policy.

Between people found guilty of the same crime.

If two or more people are involved in the same criminal activity and they exchange gifts or donations as part of their arrangement, those gifts are also invalid. Likewise, if one person is involved in a crime and tries to name their criminal partner as a beneficiary, it would not be permitted.

Donations to public officials or their family because of their position.

If a public official receives gifts or donations because of their job, like money or property, those gifts are not allowed under the law. Consequently, if a public official or any of his family was named as a beneficiary in exchange for favors related to their job, that would not be allowed under the law.

In simpler terms, these rules prevent certain people from giving or receiving gifts or donations, or from designating someone as a beneficiary under specific circumstances. These same rules under the New Civil Code of the Philippines specify who cannot be named as beneficiaries in life insurance policies. Specifically, if someone is found guilty of adultery or concubinage, involved in the same criminal offense with another person, or receiving gifts due to their public office, they cannot be named as beneficiaries.

Let’s take the case of Heirs of Loreto Maramag vs. Eva Verna De Guzman Maramag, G.R. No. 181132, June 5, 2009, wherein the Supreme Court held that the insurance contract remains valid if a concubine is made the beneficiary, but the indemnity must go to the legal heirs, not the concubine. To wit:

If a concubine is made the beneficiary, it is believed that the insurance contract will still remain valid, but the indemnity must go to the legal heirs and not to the concubine, for evidently, what is prohibited under Art. 2012 is the naming of the improper beneficiary.

In such case, the action for the declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee, and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action (Comment of Edgardo L. Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, page 897). Since the designation of defendant Eva Verna de Guzman as one of the primary beneficiary (sic) in the insurances (sic) taken by the late Loreto C. Maramag is void under Art. 739 of the Civil Code, the insurance indemnity that should be paid to her must go to the legal heirs of the deceased which this court may properly take cognizance as the action for the declaration for the nullity of a void donation falls within the general jurisdiction of this Court.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply