CABANAS vs.

PILAPIL
G.R. No. L-25843
July 25, 1974
Topic - Insurance policy case between brother of the deceased (father) and the
mother of the child (beneficiary)
Plaintif
Defendant

- MELCHORA CABANAS
- FRANCISCO PILAPIL

Doctrine
- State as Parens Patriea
n. Latin for "father of his country," the term for the doctrine that the government is
the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose
care is only "entrusted" to their parents. Under this doctrine, in a divorce action or a
guardianship application, the court retains jurisdiction until the child is 18 years old,
and a judge may change custody, child support or other rulings affecting the child's
well-being, no matter what the parents may have agreed or the court previously
decided.
Facts:
1. Florentino Pilapil and the plaintif, Melchora Cabanas (married woman) had a
child named Millian Pilapil. Florentino insured himself and named his daughter
as beneficiary, and his brother, the defendant, Francisco Pilapil to act as
trustee. Florentino died when the child was only ten (10) years old, thus
Francisco administered the benefits of the insurance for the child. The mother
filed a complaint seeking the delivery of the insurance proceeds in her favor,
and for her to be declared as the childs trustee.
2. The disputants are the mother and the uncle of a minor beneficiary of the
proceeds of an insurance policy issued on the life of her deceased father. It
centers on who should be entitled the trustee.
3. The lower court applying the appropriate Civil Code provisions, specifically
Articles 320 and 321 of the Civil Code that states 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 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 who he is under parental authority and whose
company he lives The lower court then decided in favor of the mother, but
the uncle appealed.
Issue:
(1)
(2)

Whether or not the trust made by the deceased and his brother, making
his brother as trustee, is valid.
Whether or not the State, acting as parens patriae, can interfere with the
terms of the insurance made by the deceased and his brother.

Held:
1. Yes. The trust is void. The beneficiary is a minor under the custody and
parental authority of the plaintif, her mother. Since under our law the

usufructuary is entitled to possession, the plaintif is entitled to possession of

the insurance proceeds. The trust (between the father and uncle) is pro tanto
null and void.
2. Yes. The State as parens patriae has the jurisdiction to interfere with the
terms of the insurance. The State has an inherent right to protect and
strengthen the family as the basic social institution. (Article 2, Section 12)
The Court validates the plea of the plaintif, and asserts the principle that in
cases of this nature, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.