Name: Class: Professor:

Coleen Grace V. Navarro Constitutional Law 1, Set D Atty. Roberto Demigillo

CASE DIGEST CABANAS VS. PILAPIL G.R. No. L-25843 July 25, 1974 MELCHORA CABANAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO PILAPIL, defendant-appellant. Seno, Mendoza & Associates for plaintiff-appellee. Emilio Benitez, Jr. for defendant-appellant. FACTS: Florentino Pilapil insured himself and designated his child, Millian Pilapil, as the beneficiary. Under the insurance policy, he made his brother Francisco Pilpapil the one to administer the insurance while the beneficiary is still a minor. Upon the death of the insured, the child was 10 years old, thus his brother received the proceeds of the insurance in behalf of the child. Meanwhile, the mother of Millian, Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint that she instead shall be the trustee of her child and claim the insurance proceeds in behalf of Millian. Francisco invoked the terms of the insurance policy and contended that it is a private contract, thus the terms shall only be binding to the parties intended beneficiaries. ISSUE: Whether or not Melchora Cabana, the mother, be entitled to be the trustee of Millian as the beneficiary of the proceeds of the insurance policy. HELD: The court ruled, costs against defendant-appellant. Two rationales of the decision: With the provisions Articles 320 and 321 of the Civil Code as basis. Article 320 states that the father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority. If the property is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or mother shall give a bond subject to the approval of the Court of First Instance." And Article 321 states that "The property which the child has acquired or may acquire with his work or industry, or by any lucrative title, belongs to the child in ownership, and in usufruct to the father or mother under whom he is under parental authority and whose company he lives. The judiciary as an instrumentality of the state in its role, parens patriae, adheres to the provision of the Article 2, Sec. 12 of the constitution that states that, The state shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution, another supporting provision is the Article 15, which specifically defines the rights of families. As so in this case, the best interest of the child and sustaining the welfare of a family are what was taken into consideration. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the merit and validity of the plea, as the mother is the closest relative and that the child stays with the mother, not the uncle, without any evidence of lacking of care, thus the court find it justifiable that the best interest of the child is assured with the mother.