8/13/2019 D Cabanas vs. Pilapil Cvn

1/1

Name: Coleen Grace V. Navarro

Class: Constitutional Law 1, Set D

Professor: Atty. Roberto Demigillo

CASE DIGEST

CABANAS VS. PILAPIL

G.R. No. L-25843 July 25, 1974MELCHORA 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 thebeneficiary 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 thatthe father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the childunder parental authority. If the property is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or mother shallgive a bond subject to the approval of the Court of First Instance." And Article 321 states that "Theproperty 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 parentalauthority and whose company he lives.

The judiciary as an instrumentality of the state in its role, parens patriae, adheres to theprovision of the Article 2, Sec. 12 of the constitution that states that, The state shall strengthen the familyas a basic social institution, another supporting provision is the Article 15, which specifically defines therights of families.As so in this case, the best interest of the child and sustaining the welfare of a familyare what was taken into consideration. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the merit and validity of theplea, as the mother is the closest relative and that the child stays with the mother, not the uncle, withoutany evidence of lacking of care, thus the court find it justifiable that the best interest of the child is assuredwith the mother.