Case Summary (G.R. No. 110399)
Factual Background
Upon the death of Florentino Pilapil, life insurance proceeds payable to his minor daughter Millian were turned over to Francisco Pilapil pursuant to the policy’s trust clause. Living with her mother, Millian became the subject of a petition filed by Melchora Cabanas on October 10, 1964, seeking delivery of the proceeds. Cabanas posted the bond required by law to assume administration of her daughter’s property.
Lower Court Decision and Rationale
On May 10, 1965, the trial court granted Cabanas’s petition and ordered the uncle to deliver the insurance proceeds to her. The court grounded its decision on Civil Code Articles 320 and 321, concluding that Millian owned the proceeds while her mother, as usufructuary, was entitled to possession. Any term of the policy conflicting with these provisions was declared pro tanto void, subject to Cabanas’s posting of an additional bond.
Applicable Law
• Civil Code of 1950, Article 320: “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.”
• Civil Code of 1950, Article 321: “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 whom he is under parental authority and whose company he lives.”
• 1973 Philippine Constitution (applicable then), Article II, Section 4 (as cited): “The State shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution.”
Supreme Court’s Codal Application
The Supreme Court affirmed that when statutory language is clear and unequivocal, the task is to apply, not interpret, its commands. Articles 320 and 321 unambiguously vest ownership of the proceeds in the minor and grant usufructuary possession to the parent with custody—here, the mother—thereby invalidating any conflicting trust provision.
Child Welfare as Paramount Consideration
Beyond strict codal compliance, the Court underscored the welfare of the child as the controlling principle. Between a mother and an uncle—and with the child residing with her mother—it is a r
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 110399)
Facts of the Case
- Florentino Pilapil, the deceased insured, designated his ten-year-old child, Millian Pilapil, as beneficiary of a life insurance policy and appointed his brother, Francisco Pilapil, as trustee during her minority.
- Millian Pilapil was living with her mother, Melchora Cabanas, with whom she had been born out of wedlock.
- Upon Florentino’s death, the insurer paid the policy proceeds to Francisco Pilapil, who retained the amount as trustee.
- Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint on October 10, 1964, seeking delivery of the insurance proceeds, posting the bond required under the Civil Code.
Procedural Posture
- The Regional Trial Court, in a decision dated May 10, 1965, relied on Articles 320 and 321 of the Civil Code (1950) and ordered Francisco Pilapil to turn over the proceeds to Melchora Cabanas.
- Francisco Pilapil appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, contending that the terms of the insurance policy entitled him to retain the funds as trustee.
Issue
- Who is legally entitled to administer the insurance proceeds for the benefit of the minor Millian Pilapil: her mother, Melchora Cabanas, or her uncle and designated trustee, Francisco Pilapil?
Applicable Law
- Article 320, Civil Code (1950): “The father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority…”
- Article 321, Civil Code (1950): “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 whom he is under parental authority and whose company he lives…”
- Parens