Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. L-41014 November 28, 1988PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION,petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION,respondents.Flores, Ocampo, Dizon and Domingo Law Office for petitioner.Cabochan and Reyes Law Office for respondents.PARAS,J.:This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of respondent Court of Appeals*in CA-G.R. No. 41735-R, entitled "Pacific Banking Corporation vs. Oriental Assurance Corporation", which set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila,**which had in turn granted the complaint for a sum of money in Civil Case No. 56889.As gathered from the records, the undisputed facts of this case are as follows:On October 21,1963, Fire Policy No. F-3770 (Exhibit "A"), an open policy, was issued to the Paramount Shirt Manufacturing Co. (hereinafter referred to as the insured, for brevity), by which private respondent Oriental Assurance Corporation bound itself to indemnify the insured for any loss or damage, not exceeding P61,000.00, caused by fire to its property consisting of stocks, materials and supplies usual to a shirt factory, including furniture, fixtures, machinery and equipment while contained in the ground, second and third floors of the building situated at number 256 Jaboneros St., San Nicolas, Manila, for a period of one year commencing from that date to October 21, 1964.The insured was at the time of the issuance of the policy and is up to this time, a debtor of petitioner in the amount of not less than Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00) and the goods described in the policy were held in trust by the insured for the petitioner under thrust receipts (Record on Appeal, p. 4).Said policy was duly endorsed to petitioner as mortgagee/ trustor of the properties insured, with the knowledge and consent of private respondent to the effect that "loss if any under this policy is payable to the Pacific Banking Corporation".On January 4, 1964, while the aforesaid policy was in full force and effect, a fire broke out on the subject premises destroying the goods contained in its ground and second floors (Record on Appeal, p.5)On January 24, 1964, counsel for the petitioner sent a letter of demand to private respondent for indemnity due to the lossof property by fire under the endorsement of said policy (Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, pp. 16-17).On January 28, 1964, private respondent informed counsel for the petitioner that it was not yet ready to accede to the latter's demand as the former is awaiting the final report of the insurance adjuster, H.H. Bayne Adjustment Company (Brieffor Plaintiff-Appellee, pp. 17-18).On March 25, 1964, the said insurance adjuster notified counsel for the petitioner that the insured under the policy had notfiled any claim with it, nor submitted proof of loss which is a clear violation of Policy Condition No.11, and for which reason, determination of the liability of private respondent could not be had (Supra, pp. 19-20).