Scribd
Upload
519 views

Cabanas Vs Pilapil - Case Digest

The mother of a minor child filed a complaint seeking to be named the trustee of her child's insurance benefits instead of the child's uncle. The lower court ruled in favor of the mother. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that as parens patriae, or parent of the country, the state has a duty to act in the best interests of those unable to act for themselves like minors. Here, it was in the child's best interest for the mother rather than uncle to be the trustee given the closer familial relationship between a mother and child.

Uploaded by

RenCha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
519 views

Cabanas Vs Pilapil - Case Digest

The mother of a minor child filed a complaint seeking to be named the trustee of her child's insurance benefits instead of the child's uncle. The lower court ruled in favor of the mother. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that as parens patriae, or parent of the country, the state has a duty to act in the best interests of those unable to act for themselves like minors. Here, it was in the child's best interest for the mother rather than uncle to be the trustee given the closer familial relationship between a mother and child.

Uploaded by

RenCha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Cabanas v Pilapil Digest

G.R. No. L-25843

(58 SCRA 94, July 25, 1974)


Facts:
Florentino Pilapil, deceased, left an insurance having his child, Millian Pilapil, as the 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. The lower court applied the
appropriate Civil Code provisions decided in favor of the mother. Francisco appealed, 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. However, the
Issue:

Whether or not the state may interfere by virtue of parens patriae to the terms of the insurancepolicy?

Ruling:
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 atbarwould 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.
Sources:
-Digest: http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/11/cabanas-v-pilapil-digest.html
-http://www.scribd.com/doc/33747969/Cabanas-vs-Pilapil-CASE-DIGEST
-Full Text: http:http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jul1974/gr_l_25843_1974.html

Additional Notes:
parens patriae (par-ens pa-tree-ee)
-A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are l egally
unable to act on their own behalf.
-has its roots in English Common Law. In feudal times various obligations and powers, collectively
referred to as the "royal prerogative," were reserved to the king. The king exercised these functions in his
role of father of the country.
In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of
children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs.
The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent
power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies
between parents. This inherent power is generally supplemented by legislative acts that define the scope
of child protection in a state.The state, acting as parens patriae, can make decisions regarding mental
health treatment on behalf of one who is mentally incompetent to make the decision on his or her own
behalf, but the extent of the state's intrusion is limited to reasonable and necessary treatment.

You might also like