Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-25843 July 25, 1974 MELCHORA CAANAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. !RANC"SCO P"LAP"L, defendant-appellant. Seno, Mendoza & Associates for plaintiff-appellee. Emilio Benitez, Jr. for defendant-appellant.
!ERNAN#O, J.: p p
he disputants in this appeal f!o" a #uestion of la$ f!o" a lo$e! cou!t decision a!e the "othe! and the uncle of a "ino! beneficia!% of the p!oceeds of an insu!ance polic% issued on the life of he! deceased fathe!. he dispute cente!s as to $ho of the" should be entitled to act as t!ustee the!eof. he lo$e! cou!t appl%in& the app!op!iate Civil Code p!ovisions decided in favo! of the "othe!, the plaintiff in this case. Defendant uncle appealed. 's noted, the lo$e! cou!t acted the $a% it did follo$in& the specific "andate of the la$. In addition, it "ust have ta(en into account the p!inciple that in cases of this natu!e the $elfa!e of the child is the pa!a"ount conside!ation. It is not an un!easonable assu"ption that bet$een a "othe! and an uncle, the fo!"e! is li(el% to lavish "o!e ca!e on and pa% &!eate! attention to he!. his is all the "o!e li(el% conside!in& that the child is $ith the "othe!. he!e a!e no ci!cu"stances then that did "ilitate a&ainst $hat confo!"s to the natu!al o!de! of thin&s, even if the lan&ua&e of the la$ $e!e not as clea!. It is not to be lost si&ht of eithe! that the )udicia!% pu!suant to its !ole as an a&enc% of the State as parens patriae, $ith an even &!eate! st!ess on fa"il% unit% unde! the p!esent Constitution, did $ei&h in the balance the opposin& clai"s and did co"e to the conclusion that the $elfa!e of the child called fo! the "othe! to be ent!usted $ith such !esponsibilit%. *e have to affi!". he appealed decision "ade clea!+ he!e is no cont!ove!s% as to the facts. 1 he insu!ed, lo!entino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, $ith a "a!!ied $o"an, the plaintiff, Melcho!a Cabanas. She $as ten %ea!s old at the ti"e the co"plaint $as filed on Octobe! /, 012. he defendant, !ancisco Pilapil, is the b!othe! of the deceased. he deceased insu!ed hi"self and instituted as beneficia!%, his child, $ith his b!othe! to act as t!ustee du!in& he! "ino!it%. 3pon his death, the p!oceeds $e!e paid to hi". 4ence
this co"plaint b% the "othe!, $ith $ho" the child is livin&, see(in& the delive!% of such su". She filed the bond !e#ui!ed b% the Civil Code. Defendant $ould )ustif% his clai" to the !etention of the a"ount in #uestion b% invo(in& the te!"s of the insu!ance polic%. 2 'fte! t!ial dul% had, the lo$e! cou!t in a decision of Ma% /, 015, !ende!ed )ud&"ent o!de!in& the defendant to delive! the p!oceeds of the polic% in #uestion to plaintiff. Its "ain !eliance $as on '!ticles 67/ and 67 of the Civil Code. he fo!"e! p!ovides+ he fathe!, o! in his absence the "othe!, is the le&al ad"inist!ato! of the p!ope!t% pe!tainin& to the child unde! pa!ental autho!it%. If the p!ope!t% is $o!th "o!e than t$o thousand pesos, the fathe! o! "othe! shall &ive a bond sub)ect to the app!oval of the Cou!t of i!st Instance. 3 he latte! states+ he p!ope!t% $hich the une"ancipated child has ac#ui!ed o! "a% ac#ui!e $ith his $o!( o! indust!%, o! b% an% luc!ative title, belon&s to the child in o$ne!ship, and in usuf!uct to the fathe! o! "othe! unde! $ho" he is unde! pa!ental autho!it% and $hose co"pan% he lives8 ... 4 Confo!"it% to such e9plicit codal no!" is appa!ent in this po!tion of the appealed decision+ he insu!ance p!oceeds belon& to the beneficia!%. he beneficia!% is a "ino! unde! the custod% and pa!ental autho!it% of the plaintiff, he! "othe!. he said "ino! lives $ith plaintiff o! lives in the co"pan% of the plaintiff. he said "ino! ac#ui!ed this p!ope!t% b% luc!ative title. Said p!ope!t%, the!efo!e, belon&s to the "ino! child in o$ne!ship, and in usuf!uct to the plaintiff, he! "othe!. Since unde! ou! la$ the usuf!uctua!% is entitled to possession, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the insu!ance p!oceeds. he t!ust, insofa! as it is in conflict $ith the above #uoted p!ovision of la$, is pro tanto null and void. In o!de!, ho$eve!, to p!otect the !i&hts of the "ino!, Millian Pilapil, the plaintiff should file an additional bond in the &ua!dianship p!oceedin&s, Sp. P!oc. No. 72:-R of this Cou!t to !aise he! bond the!ein to the total a"ount of P5,///.//. 5 It is ve!% clea!, the!efo!e, conside!in& the above, that unless the applicabilit% of the t$o cited Civil Code p!ovisions can be disputed, the decision "ust stand. he!e is no a"bi&uit% in the lan&ua&e e"plo%ed. he $o!ds a!e !athe! clea!. hei! "eanin& is une#uivocal. i"e and ti"e a&ain, this Cou!t has left no doubt that $he!e codal o! statuto!% no!"s a!e cast in cate&o!ical lan&ua&e, the tas( befo!e it is not one of inte!p!etation but of application. $So it "ust be in this case. So it $as in the appealed decision. . It $ould ta(e "o!e than )ust t$o pa!a&!aphs as found in the b!ief fo! the defendantappellant 7 to blunt the fo!ce of le&al co""ands that spea( so plainl% and so un#ualifiedl%. Even if it $e!e a #uestion of polic%, the conclusion $ill !e"ain unalte!ed. *hat is pa!a"ount, as "entioned at the outset, is the $elfa!e of the child. It is in consonance $ith such p!i"o!dial end that '!ticles 67/ and 67 have been $o!ded. he!e is !eco&nition in the la$ of the deep ties that bind pa!ent and child. In the event that the!e is less than full "easu!e of conce!n fo! the offsp!in&, the p!otection is supplied b% the bond !e#ui!ed. *ith the added ci!cu"stance that the child sta%s $ith the "othe!, not the uncle, $ithout an% evidence of lac( of "ate!nal ca!e, the decision a!!ived at can stand the test of the st!ictest sc!utin%. It is fu!the! fo!tified b% the assu"ption, both lo&ical and natu!al, that infidelit% to the t!ust i"posed b% the deceased
is "uch less in the case of a "othe! than in the case of an uncle. Man!esa, co""entin& on '!ticle 50 of the Civil Code of Spain, the sou!ce of '!ticle 67/ of the Civil Code, $as of that vie$+ hus El de!echo % la obli&acion de ad"inist!a! el Pat!i"onio de los hi)os es una consecuencia natu!al % l;&ica de la pat!ia potestad % de la p!esunci;n de #ue nadie cuida!< de los bienes de ac#u=llos con "as ca!i>o % solicitude #ue los pad!es. En nuest!o De!echo anti&uo puede deci!se #ue se hallaba !econocida de una "ane!a indi!ecta a#uelia doct!ina, % asi se desp!ende de la sentencia del !ibunal Sup!e"eo de 6/ de dicie"b!e de :12, #ue se !efie!e a la le% 72, tit. ?III de la Pa!tida 5. De la p!opia sue!te aceptan en &ene!al dicho p!incipio los Codi&os e9t!an)e!os, con las li"itaciones % !e#uisitos de #ue t!ata!e"os "is adelante. 8 7. he appealed decision is suppo!ted b% anothe! co&ent conside!ation. It is butt!essed b% its adhe!ence to the concept that the )udicia!%, as an a&enc% of the State actin& as parens patriae, is called upon $heneve! a pendin& suit of liti&ation affects one $ho is a "ino! to acco!d p!io!it% to his best inte!est. It "a% happen, as it did occu! he!e, that fa"il% !elations "a% p!ess thei! !espective clai"s. It $ould be "o!e in consonance not onl% $ith the natu!al o!de! of thin&s but the t!adition of the count!% fo! a pa!ent to be p!efe!!ed. it could have been diffe!ent if the conflict $e!e bet$een fathe! and "othe!. Such is not the case at all. It is a "othe! asse!tin& p!io!it%. Ce!tainl% the )udicia!% as the inst!u"entalit% of the State in its !ole of parens patriae, cannot !e"ain insensible to the validit% of he! plea. In a !ecent case, 9 the!e is this #uotation f!o" an opinion of the 3nited States Sup!e"e Cou!t+ his p!e!o&ative of parens patriae is inhe!ent in the sup!e"e po$e! of eve!% State, $hethe! that po$e! is lod&ed in a !o%al pe!son o! in the le&islatu!e, and has no affinit% to those a!bit!a!% po$e!s $hich a!e so"eti"es e9e!ted b% i!!esponsible "ona!chs to the &!eat det!i"ent of the people and the dest!uction of thei! libe!ties. *hat is "o!e, the!e is this constitutional p!ovision vitali@in& this concept. It !eads+ he State shall st!en&then the fa"il% as a basic social institution. 1% If, as the Constitution so $isel% dictates, it is the fa"il% as a unit that has to be st!en&thened, it does not ad"it of doubt that even if a st!on&e! case $e!e p!esented fo! the uncle, still defe!ence to a constitutional "andate $ould have led the lo$e! cou!t to decide as it did. &HERE!ORE, '() *)+o o/ M0y 1%, 19$5 0//)*. Co' 00' *)/)*0'0)ll0'. Zaldivar (Chairman, Antonio, !ernandez and A"#ino, JJ., conc#r. Barredo, J., too$ no part.
!oo'o')
Decision, Reco!d on 'ppeal, 72. 7 Cf. %id , 72-75.
6 '!ticle 67/ of the Civil Code A05/B. 2 '!ticle 67 of the Civil Code A05/B. 5 Decision, Reco!d on 'ppeal, 7. 1 Cf. People vs. Mapa, -776/, 'u&. 6/, 01, 7/ SCR' 128 Pacific O9%&en 'cet%lene Co. v. Cent!al Fan(, -7::, Ma!ch , 01:, 77 SCR' 08 De#uito v. ope@, -75, Ma!ch 7:, 01:, 77 SCR' 6578 Padilla v. Cit% of Pasa% -72/60, Gune 70, 01:, 76 SCR' 620+ Ha!cia v. Vas#ue@, -71:/:, Ma!ch 7:, 010, 7 SCR' 5/58 a Pe!ia Ci&a! and Ci&a!ette acto!% v. Capa!as, -702: and 7://-, Gul% 6, 010, 7: SCR' /:58 Mobil Oil Phil., Inc. v. Dioca!es, -716, Sept. 6/, 010, 70 SCR' 1518 u@on Su!et% Co., Inc. v. De Ha!cia, -75150, Oct. 6, 010, 6/ SCR' 8 Vda. de Macabenta v. Davao Stevedo!e e!"inal Co., -72:0, 'p!il 6/, 0/, 67 SCR' 5568 Republic lou! Mills, Inc. v. Co""issione! of Custo"s, -7:216, Ma% 6, 0, 60 SCR' 7108 Ma!iti"e Co. of the Phil. v. Repa!ations Co""ission, -707/6, Gul% 71, 0, 2/ SCR' /8 'llied F!o(e!a&e Co!p. v. Co""issione! of Custo"s, -712, 'u&. 6, 0, 2/ SCR' 555.8 Hon@a&a v. Cou!t of 'ppeals, 7255, Gune 7:, 06, 5 SCR' 6:8 Vallan&ca v. '!iola, -70771, Sept. 7:, 06, 56 SCR' 608 Galandoni v. Enda%a, -76:02, Gan. 72, 02, 55 SCR' 718 Pacis v. Pa"a!an, -76001, Ma!ch 5, 02. F!ief fo! the Defendant-'ppellant, :-0. : 7 Man!esa, Codi&o Civil Espa>ol, 6: A022B. 0 Ne!% v. o!en@o, -76/01, 'p!il 7, 07, 22 SCR' 26, 26:-260. / '!ticle II, Section of the Constitution.
CASE #"GEST SAMPLE 1 Su'o+6 #o+') o/ '() S'0') 0 P0) P0'0)
C000 Pl0l #)' !0+'6
. lo!entino Pilapil insu!ed hi"self and indicated his child to be his sole beneficia!%. 4e li(e$ise indicated that if he dies $hile the child is still a "ino!, the p!oceeds shall be ad"iniste!ed b% his b!othe! !ancisco. lo!entino died $hen the child $as onl% ten %ea!s old hence, !ancisco too( cha!&e of lo!entinos benefits fo! the child. Mean$hile, the "othe! of the child Melcho!a Caba>as filed a co"plaint see(in& the delive!% of the su" of "one% in he! favo! and allo$ he!self to be the childs t!ustee. !ancisco asse!ted the te!"s of the insu!ance polic% and contended that as a p!ivate cont!act its te!"s and obli&ations "ust be bindin& onl% to the pa!ties and intended beneficia!ies.
"SSUE6 *hethe! o! not the state "a% inte!fe!e b% vi!tue of Jpa!ens pat!iaeK to the te!"s of the insu!ance polic%L
HEL#6ES.
he Constitution p!ovides fo! the st!en&thenin& of the fa"il% as the basic social unit, and that $heneve! an% "e"be! the!eof such as in the case at ba! $ould be p!e)udiced and his inte!est be affected then the )udicia!% if a liti&ation has been filed should !esolve acco!din& to the best inte!est of that pe!son.
he uncle he!e should not be the t!ustee, it should be the "othe! as she $as the i""ediate !elative of the "ino! child and it is assu"ed that the "othe! sho$s "o!e ca!e to$a!ds the child than an uncle.
It is butt!essed b% its adhe!ence to the concept that the )udicia!%, as an a&enc% of the State actin& as pa!ens pat!iae, is called upon $heneve! a pendin& suit of liti&ation affects one $ho is a "ino! to acco!d p!io!it% to his best inte!est. It "a% happen, fa"il% !elations "a% p!ess thei! !espective clai"s. It $ould be "o!e in consonance not onl% $ith the natu!al o!de! of thin&s but the t!adition of the count!% fo! a pa!ent to be p!efe!!ed. it could have been diffe!ent if the conflict $e!e bet$een fathe! and "othe!.
Such is not the case at all. It is a "othe! asse!tin& p!io!it%. Ce!tainl% the )udicia!% as the inst!u"entalit% of the State in its !ole of pa!ens pat!iae, cannot !e"ain insensible to the validit% of he! plea.
CASE #"GEST
F% Niel Victo! . Raba%a
To+6 Doct!ine of the State as 'arens 'atriae Parens Patriae APa!ents of the Count!%B
In la$, it !efe!s to the public polic% po$e! of the state to inte!vene a&ainst an abusive o! ne&li&ent pa!ent, le&al &ua!dian o! info!"al ca!eta(e!, and to act as the pa!ent of an% child o! individual $ho is in need of p!otection.
his doct!ine has been defined as '() ())' o) 0* 0u'(o'y o/ '() '0') 'o o*) o')+'o 'o '() )o 0* o)'y o/ '() )o Non-sui Juris.
Non-sui Juris P)o a!e '(o) (o l0+: '() l)0l +00+'y 'o 0+' o ( o )(0l/ li(e the child o! the insane pe!sons
C000 . Pl0l G.R No. L-25843 July 25, 1974 58 SCRA 94 !ERNAN#O, J.:
MELCHORA CAANAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. !RANC"SCO P"LAP"L, defendant-appellant. Seno, Mendoza & Associates for plaintiff-appellee. Emilio Benitez, Jr. for defendant-appellant.
lo!entino Pilapil insu!ed hi"self and indicated his child to be his sole beneficia!%. 4e li(e$ise indicated that if he dies $hile the child is still a "ino!, the p!oceeds shall be ad"iniste!ed b% his b!othe! !ancisco. lo!entino died $hen the child $as onl% ten %ea!s old hence, !ancisco too( cha!&e of lo!entinos benefits fo! the child. Mean$hile, the "othe! of the child Melcho!a Caba>as filed a co"plaint see(in& the delive!% of the su" of "one% in he! favo! and allo$ he!self to be the childs t!ustee. !ancisco asse!ted the te!"s of the insu!ance polic% and contended that as a p!ivate cont!act its te!"s and obli&ations "ust be bindin& onl% to the pa!ties and intended beneficia!ies.
!ACTS6
he insu!ed, lo!entino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, $ith a "a!!ied $o"an, the Plaintiff, Melcho!a Cabanas. 7. She $as ten %ea!s old at the ti"e the co"plaint $as filed on Octobe! /, 012. 3. he Defendant, !ancisco Pilapil, is the b!othe! of the deceased. 4. he deceased insu!ed hi"self and instituted as beneficia!%, his child, $ith his b!othe!, ancisco, to act as t!ustee du!in& he! "ino!it%. 3pon his death, the p!oceeds $e!e paid to !ancisco. 5. 4ence this co"plaint b% the "othe!, $ith $ho" the child is livin&, see(in& the delive!% of such su". She filed the bond !e#ui!ed b% the Civil Code. 6. Defendant $ould )ustif% his clai" to the !etention of the a"ount in #uestion b% invo(in& the te!"s of the insu!ance polic% and contended that as a p!ivate 1.
cont!act its te!"s and obli&ations "ust be bindin& onl% to the pa!ties and intended beneficia!ies.
"SSUE6
*ON the State "a% inte!fe!e b% vi!tue of the Doct!ine of Pa!ens Pat!iae to the te!"s of the insu!ance polic%L
RULE6 ES
he insu!ance p!oceeds belon& to the beneficia!%. he beneficia!% is a "ino! unde! the custod% and pa!ental autho!it% of the plaintiff, he! "othe!. he said "ino! lives $ith plaintiff o! lives in the co"pan% of the plaintiff. he said "ino! ac#ui!ed this p!ope!t% b% luc!ative title. Said p!ope!t%, the!efo!e, belon&s to the "ino! child in o$ne!ship, and in usuf!uct to the plaintiff, he! "othe!. Since unde! ou! la$ the usuf!uctua!% is entitled to possession, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the insu!ance p!oceeds.
he t!ust, insofa! as it is in conflict $ith the above #uoted p!ovision of la$, is pro tanto Ato such an e9tentB null and void. In o!de!, ho$eve!, to p!otect the !i&hts of the "ino!, Millian Pilapil, the plaintiff should file an additional bond in the &ua!dianship p!oceedin&s, Sp. P!oc. No. 72:-R of this Cou!t to !aise he! bond the!ein to the total a"ount of P5,///.//.
A++o* 'o '() #o+') o/ '() S'0') 0 Parens Patriae
he Constitution p!ovides fo! the st!en&thenin& of the fa"il% as the basic social unit, and that $heneve! an% "e"be! the!eof such as in the case at ba! $ould be p!e)udiced and his inte!est be affected then the )udicia!% if a liti&ation has been filed should !esolve acco!din& to the best inte!est of that pe!son.
he uncle he!e should not be the t!ustee, it should be the "othe! as she $as the i""ediate !elative of the "ino! child and it is assu"ed that the "othe! sho$s "o!e ca!e to$a!ds the child than an uncle.
It is butt!essed b% its adhe!ence to the concept that the )udicia!%, as an a&enc% of the State actin& as pa!ens pat!iae, is called upon $heneve! a pendin& suit of liti&ation affects one $ho is a "ino! to acco!d p!io!it% to his best inte!est. It "a% happen, fa"il% !elations "a% p!ess thei! !espective clai"s. It $ould be "o!e in consonance not onl% $ith the natu!al o!de! of thin&s but the t!adition of the count!% fo! a pa!ent to be p!efe!!ed. it could have been diffe!ent if the conflict $e!e bet$een fathe! and "othe!. Such is not the case at all. It is a "othe! asse!tin& p!io!it%. Ce!tainl% the )udicia!% as the inst!u"entalit% of the State in its !ole of pa!ens pat!iae, cannot !e"ain insensible to the validit% of he! plea.
&HERE!ORE, '() *)+o o/ M0y 1%, 19$5 0//)*. Co' 00' *)/)*0'0)ll0'.
R)/))+)6
A'+l) 32% o/ '() Cl Co*) o/ '() P(l) - he fathe!, o! in his absence the "othe!, is the le&al ad"inist!ato! of the p!ope!t% pe!tainin& to the child unde! pa!ental autho!it%. "/ '() o)'y o'( o) '(0 'o '(ou0* )o , the fathe! o! "othe! shall &ive a o* u;)+' 'o '() 0o0l o/ '() Cou' o/ !' "'0+) .
A'+l) 321 o/ '() Cl Co*) o/ '() P(l) - he p!ope!t% $hich the une"ancipated child has ac#ui!ed o! "a% ac#ui!e $ith his $o!( o! indust!%, o! b% an% luc!ative title, )lo 'o '() +(l* o)( , 0* uu/u+' Athe !i&ht to en)o% the use and advanta&es of anothe!s p!ope!t% sho!t of the dest!uction o! $aste of its substanceB 'o '() /0'() o o'() u*) (o () u*) 0)'0l 0u'(o'y 0* (o) +o0y () l) 8 but if the child, $ith the pa!ents consent, should live independentl% f!o" the", he shall be conside!ed as e"ancipated Af!ee f!o" le&al, social, o! political !est!ictionsB fo! all pu!poses !elative to said p!ope!t%, and he shall have ove! it do"inion, usuf!uct and ad"inist!ation.
