175667162-Case-Digest-national-territory.docx - Government v Monte De Piedad Digest Facts 1 Spain paid $400,000 into the treasury of the Philippine

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

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 15 pages.

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
Image of page 1
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
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 15 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture