These three actions were instituted in the Court of First Instance of the City of  Manila by Moises Acriche for the purpose of recovering certain  sums of money from the three  defendant insurance  companies, namely,  the Law Union & Rock Insurance Co., Ltd., the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance  Co., Ltd., and the Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance  Co., according  to their respective  proportional liabilities under  policies of insurance  issued  by them on a stock  in trade of Moises Acriche, consisting principally of dry goods, and which had been damaged by fire on the night of September 21, 1922.  In addition  to the alleged direct liability of the defendant insurance companies under the policies of insurance, the plaintiff sought, in the same complaints, to recover certain proceeds resulting from the sale of salvaged stock effected by the defendant companies after the fire, and which  proceeds  have been retained by the  defendants.  In  their  answer  the  defendants denied liability under the  policies, alleging, among  other  grounds of defense, that the fire  causing the loss was of incendiary origin and  had been  set by or with the procurance and connivance  of the  plaintiff with a view  to  imposing of a fraudulent liability on the defendants; and, further, that the defendants had been relieved of all liability by reason of the fact that the plaintiff had submitted  false proofs of loss.  After the original pleadings had been submitted, Leon Acriche was  joined in the action as coplaintiff with the original plaintiff, Moises  Acriche.  In*his opinion, the trial judge  passed  without deciding the  question whether the plaintiff, or plaintiffs, had  in fact  caused or connived at the setting of tfre fire which resulted in the loss but absolved the defendants from liability under their  several policies,  on  the ground that the plaintiff, or  plaintiffs, had submitted false proofs of loss.   Nevertheless the trial court recognized the right of  the plaintiffs to recover the sum of P8,207 which had been retained in the possession of the defendant companies  from the proceeds  of  the sale of the salvaged  merchandise.  He accordingly  gave  judgment against the defendants for the last  named  amount only, dismissing the complaints with  respect to the loss caused by  the  fire.  From  this judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

It  appears that, prior to the occurrence  with which we are here concerned,  a  mercantile business had been conducted in Manila under the name of Acriche & Co., consisting of David Acriche, Marcos Abolafia, Julio Busto, and one or two others.   In November,  1920, Moises Acriche, a Spanish speaking Jew from Gallipoli, arrived in Manila and here joined his brother, David Acriche.   Moises claims to have brought with  him a sum of money with which he was able to  purchase  an interest  in the business of Acriche & Co.; and later he purchased from one Eskenazi, a share in  the same business that had belonged to  Julio Busto, now dead.  The principal establishment of Acriche & Co. was located at 132-134 Escolta, Manila, where mis- cellaneous merchandise, principally  dry goods,  was  dealt in.  David  and Moises Acriche have an uncle, named  Leon Acriche, who has stores in Iloilo and Cebu, as well as an establishment in Manila;  and by reason of the intimate relations of the Acriches among themselves there appears to have been from time to time considerable shifting around of stock from one place to another.  It is  to be inferred from  the proof that the principal function  of the concern at 132-134  Escolta was the handling of job lots acquired at forced and bankrupt sales and odds and ends collected from  various sources.

By changes in the membership of Acriche & Co. the ownership of the business at 132-134 Escolta had by  June 1, 1922, come to J>e vested in Leon  Acriche and  Moises Acriche; but Moises had the exclusive management of said business, and the policies of insurance with which we are here concerned were issued in 1921 and 1922 in his name.

One of the defenses relied  upon in the answer is  that the insurable interest in the stock was not vested in Moises Acriche at the time of the fire,  and Leon Acriche was in fact made a party plaintiff in view of his proven interest in the merchandise which was the  subject of loss.  We note, however, that the policies sued upon  are expressly so written as to cover property held in trust or on commission by Moises Acriche, or held by him on joint account with others and for which he was responsible.  It is the contention of the defendants that the stock which was  damaged by the fire really belonged to the entity, Acriche & Co., and  that it cannot be truly said that Moises Acriche held that stock in any of the characters indicated in the policy, and  in particular that the stock  was not held by Moises Acriche upon joint account with  his uncle, Leon  Acriche. At the close of his opinion the trial judge appears to have accepted this view of the case, since he observes  that the plaintiffs had not satisfactorily shown  an ownership  consistent with the terms of the policy.  Nevertheless we note that in the end he placed his decision on the ground  that the defendants were released by  the act of the plaintiffs in submitting fraudulent proof.   In  the view we take of the case, it is unnecessary to pass  upon the precise issue as to the ownership of the  insured stock.  It is enough to suggest that if the  claim had been  in  all  other  respects fair  and honest, the objection  referred to would  probably not have been a fatal obstacle to a recovery.   The really determinative questions in the case are the two  which have relation to the  origin of the fire and the nature of the proof submitted by Moises Acriche  in support of the claim.

The insured  merchandise was  contained in a  store at the corner  of the Escolta and David street, in Manila. Immediately above it was  a  room occupied for  business purposes by one Sam Weingarten,  for some time a resident of Manila  prior to the fire but who has since absconded. At about 8.30  on the night  of  September  21, 1922, pedestrians in the vicinity heard an explosion which appeared to have-  come  from  the  direction  of this  store.  Immediately smoke  and  flames were seen  to issue from the window of the room occupied  by Weingarten.  The policeman who happened to be on  duty at the corner  of the two streets  mentioned immediately turned  on the  fire alarm;  and  a  detachment of  firemen,  with  appropriate apparatus, reached  the place  within two or three minutes. As the center of the conflagration appeared to be in Weingarten's room, the  firemen broke  open the  door,  which was locked from the outside, and turned on the hose.  Admittance was, in like manner gained into  Acriche's store, and water was turned into that apartment.   In this  way the flames were subjugated before they had attained much headway.

An inspection of the premises followed,  with the result that the fire was seen to have been indubitably of incendiary origin; and by putting things together, the following facts have been satisfactorily made out:  On  the afternoon  preceding the fire, Weingarten brought a large demijohn from his sleeping  apartment in another  part of the city to his room above Acriche's store.  On the same afternoon a five- gallon can of gasoline was delivered to Weingarten at the same place; and a muchacho carried the tin up by Weingarten's direction, while the driver of the carretela making the delivery  waited  below.  The can was then opened by Weingarten and  the contents poured into the  demijohn, upon which the  muchacho was directed to  take the empty can back to  the person  waiting below.  This was done. The same afternoon Moises Acriche had a secret and extended interview with Weingarten  in  the latter's room. The fire had evidently originated  in Weingarten's room and a quantity of rags of mosquito netting, saturated with inflamable liquid was found on the floor of  this room after the fire was  extinguished.  The demijohn  also was found to have  been  shattered.

The  noise  of  the explosion, which attracted attention at the very beginning of the fire, finds its explanation in the following facts: The floor of Weingarten's room  was made of wood and  the planks  were not close enough together to prevent leakage.  Moreover, at a  certain place in the floor, there was a hole through which  any liquid  that might be poured on the floor would  readily flow into the space below.  The  ceiling of Acriche's store was formed of metal sheets, so closely joined together that any liquid admitted from above would be retained as in a receptacle. Now, the gasoline  which had been in the demijohn had evidently been emptied in the floor of Weingarten's room, with  the  result  that a considerable quantity had trickled through the floor and had probably farmed a puddle on the metal roofing of the store  below.  The gasoline, being a substance which evaporates  freely, had quickly saturated with its  gas the air in the enclosed space, with the result that when the fire,  started in some unknown manner, had reached the spot an explosion occurred, as in the chamber of a gas engine.  The physical effect of the  explosion was to blow a large hole in the metal ceiling, splattering liquid gasoline  over the contents of the store.  The hole thus formed was  about 2 feet in diameter.  Upon examination of the goods found on  the counter and shelves of the store, a  smell similar  to  that emitted by gasoline or petroleum was perceived.

That the  fire  was started by an incendiary, who  could be none other than Weingarten, is self-evident,  and circumstantial proof points to Moises Acriche  as a  probable instigator of the act.  Among these circumstances it may be noted that Weingarten had nothing insured from which he could expect  to profit by such a fire, while Acriche had on his hands an unsalable stock of self-worn goods, and his sales during the month preceding the  fire had been small  in  amount.   Acriche denies  having  had  any  intimacy  with Weingarten,  but  this  pretense  must  be considered  disproved,  as  he  is  shown  to  have visited Weingarten's living room  in another part  of  the city upon more than one occasion prior to the fire.

But most convincing of the circumstances suggestive of Acriche's participation in the starting of the fire is found in what appears to be a preconceived plan on  his part for proving a greater loss than such as would probably result from a  destructive fire.  The insurance policies  which were the subject  of suit together cover the  amount  of P55,000 and were taken out, as already stated, by Moises Acriche at the end of the year 1921 and beginning of 1922. Upon the demand of the adjuster, the insured supplied a document purporting to be an  inventory of stock,  dated May 31, 1922.   (Exhibit F.)   In  addition to this various invoices  were produced, showing additions  to the  stock between  that date and the date of the  fire, on September 21.  (Exhibits K-l and K-66.)  After the fire had occurred the stock was  examined, and some of the goods, as  set forth in  the Exhibit L-l,  were found to be un-injured.   These  were turned over by the adjuster to the insured.   The damaged goods  were listed in the Exhibit L,  which shows the character and quantity of the merchandise,  as  well  as  its  value.  The  adjuster  verified this list as to kind and quantity  of  articles  listed, and the  values shown  were either  added upon the sole responsibility of the insured or taken without question from data supplied by him.  The Exhibit L, a list of the damaged goods, was submitted  by the insured as the basis of his claims against the defendant  insurance companies.  According to this list the value of the damaged stock at the time of the fire was ¥=37,359.77.   Not satisfied with the valuation fixed by Acriche, the insurance companies caused an  independent appraisal to be made by two disinterested persons, with the result that the same goods were appraised by  them at  ¥28,537.78, showing that the valuations fixed in  the Exhibit  L  were probably excessive, due  account being taken of the character of the goods.

A comparison of the  inventory  and invoices with the lists L and L-l  reveals the fact that goods shown in the inventory and invoices to the value of P52,708.73 had disappeared  from the  stock during the interval between May 31  and September 21; and as the trial court declared,  no satisfactory showing has been made by  the assured as  to the disposition made of said goods.  Certainly they cannot be  accounted  for on the supposition that they had  been sold, since the books show  that the gross  sales between May 31 and September 21 were about P20,918.43.   (Exhibit  J.)   Further examination of the same documents reveals the fact that goods to the value of P16,899.22 were found in the stock upon the date of the fire which were not listed at all  in the inventory or invoices.  The proper inference to be  drawn from this showing in our opinion is that the  inventory was in a great measure false, and it is impossible  to believe that the assured has acted in good faith.

The incredible proof connected with the stock of mosquito  netting strongly  tends  to the same conclusion.  The Exhibit G purports to show that in  the  month of May, 1922,  the Escolta store received from Leon  Acriche 116 bales, each  containing 100 mosquito nets  of the value of P1.20 per net, and amounting in all to the value of 913,920. These mosquito nets are not  listed in Exhibit F,  and their disappearance has  not been accounted  for.  Other exhibits show that between  May 31 and  the  date of the fire mosquito netting of the value of P9,969.60 was purchased from Leon Acriche and other small purchases of  the same sort of  goods  were bought from  one Epstein  and one Goldstein, amounting  (with that  purchased from  Leon Acriche) to the  value of P10,465.56.  If to this  be added the mosquito netting received in May from Leon  Acriche, we  have merchandise  of this  sort to  the  value of P24,385.56.   Yet in the  lists  L and  L-l only  a  trivial amount of these goods, if any,  is listed.  Exhibit S, dated August 8, 1922,  shows that  upon that  date various effects were consigned from the Escolta store to the house of one Isaac  Acriche on Rosario street,  in the  City of Manila, of a total value of P3,169.10.  Among the  goods so consigned appear three bales of mosquito netting of  a total value of P435.  The Exhibit T shows a similar  consignment in June  to  Leon Acriche and  Marcos  Chucran, in  Cebu, of thirty  bales of mosquito netting valued  at 93,200.

We believe the Exhibit G  to be fictitious, at least as to a great  part of  the quantity of mosquito netting  stated therein;  and upon a review  of the whole evidence we find no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion of the trial court that the inventory  of  May  1  is in great part false and that the plaintiffs have submitted false evidence in support of their claim.   It must  also be considered established by a preponderance of evidence, though only of a circumstantial nature, that the plaintiff,  Moises Acriche, is responsible for the fire which gave rise to this action.

The insurance policies which are  the subject of  suit in these cases contain a provision expressly declaring that all benefit  thereunder shall be forfeited if  the loss  be occasioned by the willful act  or  with  the connivance of the insured, or if the claim be in any  respect fraudulent or if any fraudulent means are used by the insured  or any one acting in his  behalf to obtain  any benefit under the policy.  This provision is  fatal to  any recovery  by the plaintiffs; and the cause is  not aided by the circumstance that the plaintiff, or plaintiffs, in  fact suffered loss by the damage done to the goods listed in Exhibit L,   Supposing Moises  Acriche to have acted fraudulently, a thing which is in our opinion established, it must be remembered that the object in view was totally to destroy the stock at 132- 134 Escolta by fire; and it  was not  designed that the fire should be put out before the  work of the fire was  fully accomplished.   If  the manifest purpose had been attained, the books and documents submitted by the plaintiffs would have  shown a loss  far in  excess of the amount  of the policies, and the companies  would have been defrauded of a large sum of money in  excess of  the  real  loss.   The situation is to be judged not so much in the light of  what actually happened as in the light  of the purpose intended to be effected.

In  our opinion there was no error in the judgment appealed from, and the same  is affirmed, with costs  against the appellants.  So ordered.

Avancena, C. J.,  Malcolm,  Ostrand,  Johns,  Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., did not take  part.