9/8/2015

G.R.No.L25843

TodayisTuesday,September08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.L25843July25,1974
MELCHORACABANAS,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
FRANCISCOPILAPIL,defendantappellant.
Seno,Mendoza&Associatesforplaintiffappellee.
EmilioBenitez,Jr.fordefendantappellant.

FERNANDO,J.:p
Thedisputantsinthisappealfromaquestionoflawfromalowercourtdecisionarethemotherandtheuncleofa
minor beneficiary of the proceeds of an insurance policy issued on the life of her deceased father. The dispute
centersastowhoofthemshouldbeentitledtoactastrusteethereof.Thelowercourtapplyingtheappropriate
Civil Code provisions decided in favor of the mother, the plaintiff in this case. Defendant uncle appealed. As
noted, the lower court acted the way it did following the specific mandate of the law. In addition, it must have
takenintoaccounttheprinciplethatincasesofthisnaturethewelfareofthechildistheparamountconsideration.
Itisnotanunreasonableassumptionthatbetweenamotherandanuncle,theformerislikelytolavishmorecare
onandpaygreaterattentiontoher.Thisisallthemorelikelyconsideringthatthechildiswiththemother.There
are no circumstances then that did militate against what conforms to the natural order of things, even if the
languageofthelawwerenotasclear.Itisnottobelostsightofeitherthatthejudiciarypursuanttoitsroleasan
agencyoftheStateasparenspatriae,withanevengreaterstressonfamilyunityunderthepresentConstitution,
didweighinthebalancetheopposingclaimsanddidcometotheconclusionthatthewelfareofthechildcalled
forthemothertobeentrustedwithsuchresponsibility.Wehavetoaffirm.
Theappealeddecisionmadeclear:"Thereisnocontroversyastothefacts."1Theinsured,FlorentinoPilapilhada
child,MillianPilapil,withamarriedwoman,theplaintiff,MelchoraCabanas.Shewastenyearsoldatthetimethecomplaint
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
proceedswerepaidtohim.Hencethiscomplaintbythemother,withwhomthechildisliving,seekingthedeliveryofsuch
sum. She filed the bond required by the Civil Code. Defendant would justify his claim to the retention of the amount in
questionbyinvokingthetermsoftheinsurancepolicy.2

Aftertrialdulyhad,thelowercourtinadecisionofMay10,1965,renderedjudgmentorderingthedefendantto
delivertheproceedsofthepolicyinquestiontoplaintiff.ItsmainreliancewasonArticles320and321oftheCivil
Code.Theformerprovides:"Thefather,orinhisabsencethemother,isthelegaladministratoroftheproperty
pertainingtothechildunderparentalauthority.Ifthepropertyisworthmorethantwothousandpesos,thefather
ormothershallgiveabondsubjecttotheapprovaloftheCourtofFirstInstance."3Thelatterstates:"Theproperty
whichtheunemancipatedchildhasacquiredormayacquirewithhisworkorindustry,orbyanylucrativetitle,belongstothe
childinownership,andinusufructtothefatherormotherunderwhomheisunderparentalauthorityandwhosecompanyhe
lives...4

Conformity to such explicit codal norm is apparent in this portion of the appealed decision: "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
acquiredthispropertybylucrativetitle.Saidproperty,therefore,belongstotheminorchildinownership,andin
usufructtotheplaintiff,hermother.Sinceunderourlawtheusufructuaryisentitledtopossession,theplaintiffis
entitled to possession of the insurance proceeds. The trust, insofar as it is in conflict with the above quoted
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jul1974/gr_l_25843_1974.html

1/3

9/8/2015

G.R.No.L25843

provisionoflaw,isprotantonullandvoid.Inorder,however,toprotecttherightsoftheminor,MillianPilapil,the
plaintiffshouldfileanadditionalbondintheguardianshipproceedings,Sp.Proc.No.2418RofthisCourttoraise
herbondthereintothetotalamountofP5,000.00."5
Itisveryclear,therefore,consideringtheabove,thatunlesstheapplicabilityofthetwocitedCivilCodeprovisions
canbedisputed,thedecisionmuststand.Thereisnoambiguityinthelanguageemployed.Thewordsarerather
clear. Their meaning is unequivocal. Time and time again, this Court has left no doubt that where codal or
statutorynormsarecastincategoricallanguage,thetaskbeforeitisnotoneofinterpretationbutofapplication.6
Soitmustbeinthiscase.Soitwasintheappealeddecision.

1.Itwouldtakemorethanjusttwoparagraphsasfoundinthebriefforthedefendantappellant7toblunttheforce
oflegalcommandsthatspeaksoplainlyandsounqualifiedly.Evenifitwereaquestionofpolicy,theconclusionwillremain
unaltered. What is paramount, as mentioned at the outset, is the welfare of the child. It is in consonance with such
primordialendthatArticles320and321havebeenworded.Thereisrecognitioninthelawofthedeeptiesthatbindparent
andchild.Intheeventthatthereislessthanfullmeasureofconcernfortheoffspring,theprotectionissuppliedbythebond
required.Withtheaddedcircumstancethatthechildstayswiththemother,nottheuncle,withoutanyevidenceoflackof
maternal care, the decision arrived at can stand the test of the strictest scrutiny. It is further fortified by the assumption,
bothlogicalandnatural,thatinfidelitytothetrustimposedbythedeceasedismuchlessinthecaseofamotherthaninthe
case of an uncle. Manresa, commenting on Article 159 of the Civil Code of Spain, the source of Article 320 of the Civil
Code, was of that view: Thus "El derecho y la obligacion de administrar el Patrimonio de los hijos es una consecuencia
naturalylgicadelapatriapotestadydelapresuncindequenadiecuidardelosbienesdeacqullosconmascarioy
solicitude que los padres. En nuestro Derecho antiguo puede decirse que se hallaba reconocida de una manera indirecta
aqueliadoctrina,yasisedesprendedelasentenciadelTribunalSupremeode30dediciembrede1864,queserefiereala
ley 24, tit. XIII de la Partida 5. De la propia suerte aceptan en general dicho principio los Codigos extranjeros, con las
limitacionesyrequisitosdequetrataremosmisadelante."8

2.Theappealeddecisionissupportedbyanothercogentconsideration.Itisbuttressedbyitsadherencetothe
conceptthatthejudiciary,asanagencyoftheStateactingasparenspatriae,iscalleduponwheneverapending
suit of litigation affects one who is a minor to accord priority to his best interest. It may happen, as it did occur
here, that family relations may press their respective claims. It would be more in consonance not only with the
naturalorderofthingsbutthetraditionofthecountryforaparenttobepreferred.itcouldhavebeendifferentif
theconflictwerebetweenfatherandmother.Suchisnotthecaseatall.Itisamotherassertingpriority.Certainly
thejudiciaryastheinstrumentalityoftheStateinitsroleofparenspatriae,cannotremaininsensibletothevalidity
of her plea. In a recent case, 9 there is this quotation from an opinion of the United States Supreme Court: "This
prerogativeofparenspatriaeisinherentinthesupremepowerofeveryState,whetherthatpowerislodgedinaroyalperson
orinthelegislature,andhasnoaffinitytothosearbitrarypowerswhicharesometimesexertedbyirresponsiblemonarchsto
the great detriment of the people and the destruction of their liberties." What is more, there is this constitutional provision
vitalizing this concept. It reads: "The State shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution." 10 If, as the
Constitutionsowiselydictates,itisthefamilyasaunitthathastobestrengthened,itdoesnotadmitofdoubtthatevenifa
stronger case were presented for the uncle, still deference to a constitutional mandate would have led the lower court to
decideasitdid.

WHEREFORE,thedecisionofMay10,1965isaffirmed.Costsagainstdefendantappellant.
Zaldivar(Chairman),Antonio,FernandezandAquino,JJ.,concur.
Barredo,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
1Decision,RecordonAppeal,24.
2Cf.Ibid,2425.
3Article320oftheCivilCode(1950).
4Article321oftheCivilCode(1950).
5Decision,RecordonAppeal,27.
6Cf.Peoplevs.Mapa,L22301,Aug.30,1967,20SCRA1164PacificOxygen&AcetyleneCo.v.
CentralBank,L21881,March1,1968,22SCRA917Dequitov.Lopez,L27757,March28,1968,
22SCRA1352Padillav.CityofPasayL24039,June29,1968,23SCRA1349:Garciav.Vasquez,
L26808,March28,1969,27SCRA505LaPeriaCigarandCigaretteFactoryv.Caparas,L27948
and2800111,July31,1969,28SCRA1085MobilOilPhil.,Inc.v.Diocares,L26371,Sept.30,
1969,29SCRA656LuzonSuretyCo.,Inc.v.DeGarcia,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jul1974/gr_l_25843_1974.html

2/3

9/8/2015

G.R.No.L25843

L25659,Oct.31,1969,30SCRA111Vda.deMacabentav.DavaoStevedoreTerminalCo.,
L27489,April30,1970,32SCRA553RepublicFlourMills,Inc.v.CommissionerofCustoms,L
28463,May31,1971,39SCRA269MaritimeCo.ofthePhil.v.ReparationsCommission,L29203,
July26,1971,40SCRA70AlliedBrokerageCorp.v.CommissionerofCustoms,L27641,Aug.31,
1971,40SCRA555.Gonzagav.CourtofAppeals,L27455,June28,1973,51SCRA381
Vallangcav.Ariola,L29226,Sept.28,1973,53SCRA139Jalandoniv.Endaya,L23894,Jan.24,
1974,55SCRA261Pacisv.Pamaran,L23996,March15,1974.
7BrieffortheDefendantAppellant,89.
82Manresa,CodigoCivilEspaol,38(1944).
9Neryv.Lorenzo,L23096,April27,1972,44SCRA431,438439.
10ArticleII,SectionoftheConstitution.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jul1974/gr_l_25843_1974.html

3/3