Government of the Philippine Islands vs El Monte de Piedad

Y Caja De Ahorras De Manila

In June 1863 a devastating earthquake occurred in the
Philippines. The Spanish Government then provided
$400,000.00 as aid for the victims and it was received by
the Philippine Treasury. Out of the said amount,
$80,000.00 was left untouched; it was then invested in the
Monte de Piedad Bank which in turn invested the amount
in jewelries. But when the Philippine government later tried
to withdraw the said amount, the bank cannot provide for
the amount. The government then filed a complaint. The
bank argued that the Philippine government is not an
affected party hence has no right to institute a complaint.
The bank argues that the government was not the
intended beneficiary of the said amount.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government is
competent to file a complaint against the respondent bank.
HELD: Yes. The Philippine government is competent to
institute action against Monte de Piedad, this is in
accordance with the doctrine of Parens Patriae. The
government being the protector of the rights of the
people has the inherent supreme power to enforce
such laws that will promote the public interest. No
other party has been entrusted with such right hence as
“parents” of the people the government has the right to
take back the money intended for the people
Cabanas v. Pilapil
FACTS:
Florentino Pilapil, the insured, had a child, Millian Pilapil,
with a married woman, Melchora Cabanas. The complaint
was filed on October 10, 1964. The defendant Francisco
Pilapil, the brother of the deceased is the one designated
by the latter to act as his daughter’s trustee during her
minority. Thus, upon Florentino’s death, the proceeds were
paid to his brother hence the complaint of the mother
whom the child lives with. Petitioner contends that she
should be entitled to act as the trustee of the insurance
policy of her child.

ISSUE:
Does the State have the authority to interfere with the
terms of the insurance policy by virtue of parens patriae?

HELD:
The appealed decision adheres to the concept that the
judiciary, as an agent of the State, acts as parens patriae.
As such, the judiciary cannot remain insensible to the
validity of the petitioner’s plea. “The State shall strengthen
the family as a basic social institution”. The Constitution,
moreover, dictates that it is the family as a unit that has to
be strengthened. As such, the decision of the lower courts,
entitling the mother as the trustee, is affirmed.