pol law cases

7/28/2019 Pol Law Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pol-law-cases 1/6



Cabanas v. Pilapil G.R. No. L-25843 July 25, 1974

Fernando, J.http://bessshipside.blogspot.com/2013/04/cabanas-v-pilapil.html

Facts:

The insured, Florentino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, with a married woman, the plaintiff, Melchora Cabanas. She was ten years oldat the time the complaint was filed on October 10, 1964. The defendant, Francisco Pilapil, is the brother of the deceased. The deceased insuredhimself and instituted as beneficiary, his child, with his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon his death, the proceeds were paid to him.Hence this complaint by the mother, with whom the child is living, seeking the delivery of such sum. She filed the bond required by the Civil Code.Defendant would justify his claim to the retention of the amount in question by invoking the terms of the insurance policy.

After trial duly had, the lower court in a decision of May 10, 1965, rendered judgment ordering the defendant to deliver the proceeds of the policy in question to plaintiff. Its main reliance was on Articles 320 and 321 of the Civil Code. The former provides: “The f ather, or in his absencethe 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 latter states: “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 inusufruct to the father or mother under whom he is under parental authority and whose company he lives; …

Conformity to such explicit codal norm is apparent in this portion of the appealed decision: “The insurance proceeds belong t o 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 acquired this property by lucrative title. Said property, therefore, belongs to the minor child inownership, and in usufruct to the plaintiff, her mother. Since under our law the usufructuary is entitled to possession, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the insurance proceeds. The trust, insofar as it is in conflict with the above quoted provision of law, is pro tanto null and void. In order,however, to protect the rights of the minor, Millian Pilapil, the plaintiff should file an additional bond in the guardianship proceedings to raise her bond therein to the total amount of P5,000.00.”

Issue:

Who between the mother and the uncle of a minor beneficiary of the proceeds of an insurance policy issued on the life of her deceasedfather is entitled to be a trustee thereof?

Held:

The mother is entitled to be a trustee thereto. What is paramount is the welfare of the child. It is in consonance with such primordial endthat Articles 320 and 321 have been worded. There is recognition in the law of the deep ties that bind parent and child. In the event that there is less

than full measure of concern for the offspring, the protection is supplied by the bond required. With the added circumstance that the child stays withthe mother, not the uncle, without any evidence of lack of maternal care, the decision arrived at can stand the test of the strictest scrutiny. It is further

http://bessshipside.blogspot.com/2013/04/cabanas-v-pilapil.html





fortified by the assumption, both logical and natural, that infidelity to the trust imposed by the deceased is much less in the case of a mother than inthe case of an uncle.

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 aminor 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 bemore in consonance not only with the natural order of things but the tradition of the country for a parent to be preferred. it could have been differentif the conflict were between father and mother. Such is not the case at all. It is a mother asserting priority. Certainly the judiciary as the

instrumentality of the State in its role of parens patriae, cannot remain insensible to the validity of her plea.

Government v. Monte De Piedad Digest35 Phil 728http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/11/government-v-monte-de-piedad-digest.html

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 asovereign, 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 Islandswas ceded to the United States. Finally, if said loan was for ecclesiastical pious work, then Spain would not exercise its civil capacities.

http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/11/government-v-monte-de-piedad-digest.html





Government of the Philippine Islands vs Monte de Piedad

G.R. No. 9959

35 PH 728, 751-753

December 13, 1916Petitioner: Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by Executive Treasurer

Respondents: El Monte de Piedad Y Caja de Ajorras de Manila

http://reeseisreal.blogspot.com/2012/11/government-of-philippines-vs-monte-de.html

FACTS: On June 3, 1863, a devastating earthquake in the Philippines took place. The Spanish dominions provided $400,000 aid as received by the National Treasury as relief of the victims of the earthquake. The government used the money as such but $80,000 was left untouched and was thusinvested to Monte de Piedad bank, which was in turn invested as jewelries, equivalent to the same amount.

In June 1983, the Department of Finance called upon the same bank to return the $80,000 deposited from before. The Monte de Piedad declined tocomply with this order on the ground that the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and not the Department of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement because the Philippine government is not the affected party. On account of various petitions of the persons, the PhilippineIslands brought a suit against Monte de Piedad for a recovery of the $80,000 together with interest, for the benefit of those persons and their heirs.

Respondent refuse to provide the money, hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government is authorized to file a reimbursement of the money of the people deposited in respondent bank.

HELD: The Court held that the Philippine government is competent to file a complaint/reimbursement against respondent bank in accordance tothe Doctri ne of Parens Patri ae . The government is the sole protector of the rights of the people thus, it holds an inherent supreme power to enforcelaws which promote public interest. The government has the right to "take back" the money intended fro people. The government has the right toenforce all charities of public nature, by virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where no other person is entrustedwith it.

Appellate court decision was affirmed. Petition was thereby GRANTED. The Court ordered that respondent bank return the amount to the rightfulheirs with interest in gold or coin in Philippine peso.

Constitutional Law 1: State Functions / Concept of State (Textbook: Cruz, Professor: Atty. Usita)






Lawyers League v. Pres. Aquino

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES AND/OR OLIVER A. LOZANO

VS.

PRESIDENT CORAZON C. AQUINO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986http://yourfutureattorney.blogspot.com/2012/12/lawters-league-vs-aquino.html

FACTS:

On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power.On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "newgovernment was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of thePhilippines."

ISSUE:

Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate.

HELD:Yes.

The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the judge.

The Court fur ther held that

The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country.

It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government.

The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government.

Lawyer’s League vs. Aquino The legitimacy of the Aquino government was being contested(challenge)The Court ruled that the legitimacy of this government is a Non- justiciable matter. “It is only the people of the Philippines who may be the judge of its legitimacy. Since such government is accepted by the people, it is not merely a de facto government but also a de jure

government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized its legitimacy”

http://yourfutureattorney.blogspot.com/2012/12/lawters-league-vs-aquino.html





LINKS:

http://ulandi-digest.blogspot.com/search?q=pilapil

http://www.mylegispinoy.com/2009/06/case-digest-phil-political-law.html

http://attyralph.com/ConstitutionalLaw1.html

Doctrine of parens patriae

- Parens patriae is the task of the government to act as guardianof the rights of the people.

- This prerogative (right) of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every state, whether that power is lodged in a royal person or in thelegislature

De jure and de facto governments

De jure government-has rightful title- no power or control, either because this has been withdrawn from it, or because it has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof.

De facto government- government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or control- without legal title










pol law cases

Documents