Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Cabanas Vs Pilapil

    Uploaded by

    Deonna Fernandez
    The plaintiff Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint seeking delivery of the insurance proceeds of the deceased Florentino Pilapil, who had designated his brother Francisco Pilapil as trustee and beneficiary for his minor child Millian Pilapil. The lower court ordered defendant Francisco to deliver the proceeds to plaintiff Melchora, as the mother and legal administrator of the property of the minor child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) the insurance proceeds belonged to the minor child, and the mother as usufructuary was entitled to possession, and (2) in its role as parens patriae, the court determined that the child's welfare was best served by the mother having custody and responsibility over the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cabanas Vs Pilapil

    Uploaded by

    Deonna Fernandez
    38 views1 page
    The plaintiff Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint seeking delivery of the insurance proceeds of the deceased Florentino Pilapil, who had designated his brother Francisco Pilapil as trustee and beneficiary for his minor child Millian Pilapil. The lower court ordered defendant Francisco to deliver the proceeds to plaintiff Melchora, as the mother and legal administrator of the property of the minor child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) the insurance proceeds belonged to the minor child, and the mother as usufructuary was entitled to possession, and (2) in its role as parens patriae, the court determined that the child's welfare was best served by the mother having custody and responsibility over the

    Original Description:

    POLITICAL LAW

    Original Title

    Cabanas vs Pilapil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint seeking delivery of the insurance proceeds of the deceased Florentino Pilapil, who had designated his brother Francisco Pilapil as trustee and beneficiary for his minor child Millian Pilapil. The lower court ordered defendant Francisco to deliver the proceeds to plaintiff Melchora, as the mother and legal administrator of the property of the minor child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) the insurance proceeds belonged to the minor child, and the mother as usufructuary was entitled to possession, and (2) in its role as parens patriae, the court determined that the child's welfare was best served by the mother having custody and responsibility over the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views1 page

    Cabanas Vs Pilapil

    Uploaded by

    Deonna Fernandez
    The plaintiff Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint seeking delivery of the insurance proceeds of the deceased Florentino Pilapil, who had designated his brother Francisco Pilapil as trustee and beneficiary for his minor child Millian Pilapil. The lower court ordered defendant Francisco to deliver the proceeds to plaintiff Melchora, as the mother and legal administrator of the property of the minor child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) the insurance proceeds belonged to the minor child, and the mother as usufructuary was entitled to possession, and (2) in its role as parens patriae, the court determined that the child's welfare was best served by the mother having custody and responsibility over the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. L-25843.

    July 25, 1974


    MELCHORA CABANAS vs. FRANCISCO PILAPIL

    FACTS:

    The insured, Florentino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, with a married woman, the plaintiff, Melchora
    Cabanas. She was ten years old at the time the complaint was filed on October 10, 1964. The defendant,
    Francisco Pilapil, is the brother of the deceased. The deceased insured himself and instituted as
    beneficiary, his child, with his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon his death, the proceeds
    were paid to him. Hence this complaint by the mother, with whom the child is living, seeking the delivery
    of such sum. She filed the bond required by the Civil Code. Defendant would justify his claim to the
    retention of the amount in question by invoking the terms of the insurance policy.

    After trial the lower court in a decision of May 10, 1965, rendered judgment ordering the defendant to
    deliver the proceeds of the policy in question to plaintiff. Its main reliance was on Articles 320 and 321 of
    the Civil Code. The former provides: "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." The latter states: "The property which the unemancipated 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.." An
    appeal was filed to the Supreme Court, but it affirmed the decision of the lower court.

    ISSUE:

    1. Whether or not the Supreme Court erred in affirming the decision of the lower court and on its
    acting as parens patriae.

    HELD:

    1. NO. The insurance proceeds belong to the beneficiary. The beneficiary is a minor under the
    custody and parental authority of the plaintiff, her mother. The said minor lives with plaintiff or
    lives in the company of the plaintiff. The said minor acquired this property by lucrative title. Said
    property, therefore, belongs to the minor child in ownership, and in usufruct to the plaintiff, her
    mother. Since under our law the usufructuary is entitled to possession, the plaintiff is entitled to
    possession of the insurance proceeds. The trust, insofar as it is in conflict with the above quoted
    provision of law, is pro tanto null and void.

    It is not an unreasonable assumption that between a mother and an uncle, the former is likely to
    lavish more care on and pay greater attention to her. This is all the more likely considering that
    the child is with the mother. There are no circumstances then that did militate against what
    conforms to the natural order of things, even if the language of the law were not as clear. It is
    not to be lost sight of either that the judiciary pursuant to its role as an agency of the State as
    parens patriae, with an even greater stress on family unity under the present Constitution, did
    weigh in the balance the opposing claims and did come to the conclusion that the welfare of the
    child called for the mother to be entrusted with such responsibility. Certainly the judiciary as the
    instrumentality of the State in its role of parens patriae cannot remain insensible to the validity of
    her plea.

    You might also like