Government v.

Monte De Piedad Digest

Facts:
1. Spain paid $400,000 into the treasury of the Philippine Islands for the relief of those damaged by an
earthquake.
2. Upon the petition of Monte de Piedad, an institution under the control of the church, the Philippine Government
directed its treasurer to give $80,000 of the relief fund in Four (4)4 installments. As a result, various petitions
were filed, including the heirs of those entitled to the allotments. All prayed for the State to bring suit against
Monte de Piedad, and for it to pay with interest.
3. The Defendant appealed since all its funds have been exhausted already on various jewelry loans.
Issue: Whether the government is the proper authority to the cause of action
YES.
The Philippine government, as a trustee towards the funds could maintain the action since there has been no
change of sovereignty. The state, as a sovereign, is the parens patriae of the people. These principles are based
upon public policy. The Philippine Government is not a mere nominal party because it was exercising its
sovereign functions or powers and was merely seeking to carry out a trust developed upon it when the
Philippine Islands was ceded to the United States. Finally, if said loan was for ecclesiastical pious work, then
Spain would not exercise its civil capacities.

Cabanas v Pilapil Digest

Facts:
1. Florentino Pilapil insured himself and indicated his child to be his sole beneficiary. He likewise indicated
that if he dies while the child is still a minor, the proceeds shall be administered by his brother Francisco.
Florentino died when the child was only ten years old hence, Francisco took charge of Florentinos benefits for
the child. Meanwhile, the mother of the child Melchora Cabaas filed a complaint seeking the delivery of the
sum of money in her favor and allow herself to be the childs trustee. Francisco asserted the terms of the
insurance policy and contended that as a private contract its terms and obligations must be binding only to the
parties and intended beneficiaries.
ISSUE: Whether or not the state may interfere by virtue of parens patriae to the terms
of the insurance policy?
YES.
The Constitution provides for the strengthening of the family as the basic social unit, and that whenever
any member thereof such as in the case at bar would be prejudiced and his interest be affected then the
judiciary if a litigation has been filed should resolve according to the best interest of that person.
The uncle here should not be the trustee, it should be the mother as she was the immediate relative of the minor
child and it is assumed that the mother shows more care towards the child than an uncle.
It is buttressed by its adherence to the concept that the judiciary, as an agency of the State acting
as parens patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit of litigation affects one who is a minor to accord
priority to his best interest. It may happen, family relations may press their respective claims. It would be more
in consonance not only with the natural order of things but the tradition of the country for a parent to be
preferred. it could have been different if the conflict were between father and mother. Such is not the case at

all. It is a mother asserting priority. Certainly the judiciary as the instrumentality of the State in its role
of parens patriae, cannot remain insensible to the validity of her plea.