Republic of the Philippines  The respondent maintains that the addition of said co-beneficiary is

SUPREME COURT illegal. The appellant, on the other hand, affirms the opposite. The
Manila
GR No. L-47705 April 25, 1941
CONCORDIA GO, recurrent, vs.
ANGELA REDFERN and THE INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO.,
LTD., Appealed.
Messrs. Boncan and Garde and D. Leon T. Zavalla in representation of
the appellant.  Insurance Co. of Canada (48 Jur. Fil., 55) and Insular Life against Suva
Don CA Sobral in representation of the appealed Redfern.  (34 Off Gaz. 861)
No one appeared in representation of the other respondent.
HORRILLENO, J .:
This matter comes from the Court of Appeals. It has been elevated to
this Superiority, through certiorari, by the appellant Concordia
Go. The matter is about an accident insurance policy.
The proven facts and that appear in the judgment, object of appeal,
are, substantially, the following:
In October 1937, Edward K. Redfern obtained an accident insurance
policy (Exhibit B) from the International Assurance Co., Ltd. On August
31, 1938, said Redfern died as a result of an accident. The
respondent, mother of the deceased, submitted the necessary
evidence of the death of Redfern, and tried to collect from the
International Assurance Co., Ltd., the amount of the policy (Exhibit
B); but this entity refused to make full payment of said policy, since it
had been amended, on November 22, 1937, by the addition of a co-
beneficiary, who is the appellant Concordia Go. Hence the present
action to determine whether or not the respondent is entitled to full
payment of the amount of the insurance policy of the late Edward K.
Redfern.
point, therefore, that must be resolved is whether the addition made
is valid or not.
In Wallace's case against Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. the
following doctrine was stated: When a policy is issued, the beneficiary
or beneficiary acquires a right from which it can not be deprived
without their consent, unless it has been reserved expressly the
insured the right to modify the policy. The same doctrine is
enunciated by this Court in the cases of Gerciocontra Sun Life
We have, therefore, that unless the insured has expressly reserved
the right to change or modify the policy, with respect to the
beneficiary thereof, said policy constitutes an acquired right of the
beneficiary, which can not be modified except with the consent of the
same. And this is the case we have before us. It is admitted that the
insured Edward K. Redfern does not expressly reserve the right to
change or modify the policy. The appellant maintains, however, that
the addition of her name as one of the beneficiaries of the policy does
not constitute change. Change implies the idea of alteration. And all
addition is alteration. After having added the name of the appellant
was altered, that is, the policy was changed, both in its form, since,
with the addition of the appellant's name, that already has two
beneficiaries, instead of one, as in its fund, since the original
benefactor would not receive the full amount of the
policy. Therefore, the appellant's allegation lacks merits.
It is therefore appropriate to confirm, as we hereby confirm in all its
parts, the judgment appealed, with the costs in both instances at the
expense of the appellant. This is how it is ordered.
Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Moran, MM., Are satisfied.