FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234344. February 7, 2018.]
REYNALDO G. RAMOS, petitioner,vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MS. GILDA E. PICO, ATTY. MELISSA S. MAMAUAG, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 7, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234344 — Reynaldo G. Ramos, petitioner, vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, as represented by its President and Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Gilda E. Pico, Atty. Melissa S. Mamauag, et al., respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Additional Time 1 of thirty (30) days within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period on October 11, 2017.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same and AFFIRM the January 26, 2017 Decision 2 and the September 5, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101240 for raising factual questions and for failure of petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error so as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner insists that respondent Masaganang Sakahan, Inc. (MSI) had failed to accurately establish the extent of its insurable interest in the cavans of palay that were lost during the fire. 4 He argues that the CA's "conclusion that the total loss due to MSI was equivalent to 53,036 cavans of palay has no basis." 5
In addition, petitioner claims that there were "cavans of palay belonging to other farmers and traders [that] were among the goods deposited in his warehouse that were gutted by fire." 6 "MSI was the only depositor named in the insurance policy because it was the single biggest depositor, and it [was] very tedious to indicate all the names of the depositors in the insurance policies." 7 And since he paid the other depositors for their respective cavans of palay that were damaged during the fire, it cannot be denied that he has insurable interest that warrants his claim over the insurance proceeds. 8
It is important to point out that the issues raised by petitioner, i.e., on the extent of MSI's insurable interest on the lost cavans of palay, his own insurable interest thereon, and MSI's entitlement to the proceeds of the subject fire insurance policies, necessarily involve questions of fact which, as a rule, cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition, where the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law that might have been committed by the lower courts. 9 Consequently, the Petition should be denied, given petitioner's failure to sufficiently show any exceptional circumstance as to warrant the Court's review of factual questions that have already been settled by the lower courts.
Note, too, that Fortune Assurance and Indemnity Corporation, the insurer, never sought to defeat the insurance claim under Fire Insurance Policy Nos. F-15701 10 and F-15702 11 — in fact, after appraising the damage sustained in the fire, the insurer immediately released the amount of P7,062,919.76 as insurance indemnity, 12payable to MSI per the "simple loss payable clause" in said policies. The clause expressly states that "LOSS IF ANY, is payable to MASAGANANG SAKAHAN, INC. as their interest may appear subject to the terms, conditions, clauses and warranties of this policy." 13
Clearly, the CA had sufficient basis to declare that MSI was entitled to the insurance proceeds, for it is settled that where the terms of a contract of insurance are clear and unambiguous, "they must be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense. Courts are not permitted to make contracts for the parties; the function and duty of the courts is simply to enforce and carry out the contracts actually made." 14
It is in this context that we reject petitioner's contention that he indicated MSI as the sole recipient of the proceeds in the insurance policies for the reason that "it [was] very tedious to indicate all the names of the depositors in the insurance policies." We simply cannot alter what is expressly provided in the subject contracts of insurance in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
2.Id. at 42-54; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Stephen C. Cruz.
3.Id. at 55-57.
4.Id. at 25.
5.Id. at 29. Italics supplied.
6.Id. at 30.
7.Id. at 29.
8.Id. at 31-32.
9. See Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. People, 721 Phil. 760 (2013) citing Remalante vs. Tibe, 241 Phil. 930 (1988).
10.Rollo, pp. 66-69.
11.Id. at 70-73.
12.Id. at 46.
13.Id. at 66 and 70.
14.United Merchants Corporation v. Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, 690 Phil. 734, 754-755 (2012).