The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the recovery of a carnapped vehicle does not prevent the insured owner from receiving full payment under an insurance policy.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division ordered UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (UCPВ) to pay Wilfrido C. Wijangco (Wilfrido) for the loss of his stolen Jaguar.
Wilfrido’s son, Andrew, was held at gunpoint in a parking lot. The armed men threatened him and drove away with the car. The theft was reported to the police, and Wilfrido filed an insurance claim with UCPB, submitting all required documents.
UCPB later informed Wilfrido that the vehicle had been recovered by the Traffic Management Group (TMG). UCPB put his claim on hold and said it would close it unless he submitted a TMG investigation clearance. With no progress, Wilfrido filed a case against the insurer.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the insurance claim, holding that the theft triggered UCPB’s liability regardless of recovery. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the ruling, but the case eventually reached the SC.
The SC reinstated the RTC’s decision. It emphasized that theft is complete once the vehicle is unlawfully taken. Recovery does not erase the fact of theft.
Section 249 of the Insurance Code requires insurers to pay claims within specified periods after receiving proof of loss. Once this period lapses and before the insured vehicle is recovered, the insurer’s payment for the loss becomes final, and the insured cannot be compelled to accept the recovered vehicle. Insurance would lose its purpose if the insured had to wait indefinitely for recovery or was forced to buy a replacement only to have the original vehicle returned later.
In this case, Wilfrido filed his proof of loss on October 10, 2006, but UCPB informed him of the recovery 162 days later – well beyond the 90-day legal limit. Even when recovered, Wilfrido’s Jaguar was unserviceable, missing several parts and showing heavy damage, making the loss effectively permanent.
The SC ordered UCPB to pay Wilfrido PHP 1.8 million in insurance proceeds, plus double interest on the amount. UPCB was also directed to pay PHP 180,000 in attorney’s fees and PHP 200,000 in damages. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 257086 (Wilfrido C. Wijangco, represented by his son, Andrew C. Wijangco v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.) April 23, 2025.
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
