No. L-55397. February 29, 1988. * TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO., petitioner, vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION and TRAVELLERS MULTI INDEMNITY CORPORATION, respondents.

Insurance; Evidence; Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations.—It is a well known postulate that the case of a party is constituted by his own affirmative allegations. Under Section 1, Rule 131 each party must prove his own affirmative allegations by the amount of evidence required by law which in civil cases as in the present case is preponderance of evidence. The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at the trial such amount of evidence as required by law to obtain a favorable judgment. Thus, petitioner who is claiming a right over the insurance must prove its case. Likewise. respondent insurance company to avoid liability under the policy by setting up an affirmative defense of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner must prove its own affirmative allegations. Same; Same; Same; Respondent having admitted the material allegations in the complaint has the burden of proof to show that petitioner has no insurable interest over the insured property at the time the contingency took place.—It will be recalled that respondent insurance company did not assail the validity of the insurance policy taken out by petitioner over the mortgaged property. Neither did it deny that the said property was totally razed by fire within the period covered by the insurance. Respondent, as mentioned earlier advanced an affirmative defense of lack of insurance interest on the part of the petitioner alleging that before the occurrence of the peril insured against the Palomos had already paid their credit due the petitioner. Respondent Insurance; Evidence; Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations.—It is a well known postulate that the case of a party is constituted by his own affirmative allegations. Under Section 1, Rule 131 each party must prove his own affirmative allegations by the amount of evidence required by law which in civil cases as in the present case is preponderance of evidence. The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at the trial such amount of evidence as required by law to obtain a favorable judgment. Thus, petitioner who is claiming a right over the insurance must prove its case. Likewise. respondent insurance company to avoid liability under the policy by setting up an affirmative defense of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner must prove its own affirmative allegations. Same; Same; Same; Respondent having admitted the material allegations in the complaint has the burden of proof to show that petitioner has no insurable interest over the insured property at the time the contingency took place.—It will be recalled that respondent insurance company did not assail the validity of the insurance policy taken out by petitioner over the mortgaged property. Neither did it deny that the said property was totally razed by fire within the period covered by the insurance. Respondent, as mentioned earlier advanced an affirmative defense of lack of insurance interest on the part of the petitioner alleging that before the occurrence of the peril insured against the Palomos had already paid their credit due the petitioner. Respondent Civil Procedure; Party in interest; Actions; Partnership; Action must be brought in the name of the real party in interest; A partnership may sue and be sued in its name or by its duly authorized representative —Public respondent argues however, that if the civil case really stemmed from the loan granted to Azucena Palomo by petitioner the same should have been brought by Tai Tong Chuache or by its representative in its own behalf. From the above premise respondent concluded that the obligation secured by the insured property must have been paid. The premise is correct but the conclusion is wrong. Citing Rule 3, Sec. 2 respondent pointed out that the action must be brought in the name of the real party in interest. We agree. However, it should be borne in mind that petitioner being a partnership may sue and be sued in its name or by its duly authorized representative. The fact that Arsenio Lopez Chua is the representative of petitioner is not questioned. Petitioner s declaration that Ar senio Lopez Chua acts as the managing partner of the partnership was corroborated by respondent insurance company. Thus Chua as the managing partner of the partnership may execute all acts of administration including the right to sue debtors of the partnership in case of their failure to pay their obligations when it became due and demandable. Or at the very least, Chua being a partner of petitioner Tai Tong Chuache & Company is an agent of the partnership. Being an agent, it is understood that he acted for and in behalf of the firm. Public respondent's allegation that the civil case filed by Arsenio Chua was in his capacity as personal creditor of spouses Palomo has no basis.