175667162-Case-Digest-national-territory.docx - Government...

Government v. Monte De Piedad Digest
Facts:
1. Spain paid $400,000 into the treasury of the Philippine Islands for the relief of those
damaged by an earthquake.
2. Upon the petition of Monte de Piedad, an institution under the control of the church, the
Philippine Government directed its treasurer to give $80,000 of the relief fund in Four (4)4
installments. As a result, various petitions were filed, including the heirs of those entitled to the
allotments. All prayed for the State to bring suit against Monte de Piedad, and for it to pay with
interest.
3. The Defendant appealed since all its funds have been exhausted already on various
jewelry loans.
Issue: Whether the government is the proper authority to the cause of action
YES.
The Philippine government, as a trustee towards the funds could maintain the action since there
has been no change of sovereignty. The state, as a sovereign, is the parens patriae of the
people. These principles are based upon public policy. The Philippine Government is not a mere
nominal party because it was exercising its sovereign functions or powers and was merely
seeking to carry out a trust developed upon it when the Philippine Islands was ceded to the
United States. Finally, if said loan was for ecclesiastical pious work, then Spain would not
exercise its civil capacities.
Cabanas v Pilapil Digest
Facts:
1. Florentino Pilapil insured himself and indicated his child to be his 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 Florentino’s benefits for the child. Meanwhile, the mother of the child
Melchora Cabañas filed a complaint seeking the delivery of the sum of money in her favor and
allow herself to be the child’s trustee. Francisco 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the state may interfere by virtue of “parens patriae” to the terms
of the insurance policy?
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 at bar would 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