Melchora Cabanas vs Francisco Pilapil

November 6, 2011 No comments

58 SCRA 94 Political Law Parens Patriae Strengthening the Family

Florentino Pilapil insured himself and he indicated in his insurance plan that his child will be his beneficiary. He also
indicated that if upon his death the child is still a minor; the proceeds of his benefits shall be administered by his
brother, Francisco Pilapil. The child was only ten years of age when Florentino died and so Francisco then took charge of
Florentinos insurance proceeds for the benefit of the child.

On the other hand, the mother of the child Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint seeking the delivery of the insurance
proceeds in favor and for her to be declared as the childs trustee. Francisco asserted the terms of the insurance policy
and 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.

HELD: 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 that case 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 shall show more care towards the child than the uncle will. The application of parens patriae here is in
consonance with this countrys tradition of favoring conflicts in favor of the family hence preference to the parent
(mother) is observed.

CHUA QUA vs. CLAVE

G.R. No. L-49549 August 30, 1990

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case was about an affair and marriage of 30 years old teacher Evelyn Chua in Tay Tung High School in Bacolod City to
her 16 years old student. The petitioner teacher was suspended without pay and was terminated of his employment for
Abusive and Unethical Conduct Unbecoming of a Dignified School Teacher which was filed by a public respondent as a
clearance for termination.

ISSUE:

Was her dismissal valid?

Whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove that the antecedent facts which culminated in the marriage
between petitioner and her student constitute immorality and or grave misconduct?

SUPREME COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court declared the dismissal illegal saying:

If the two eventually fell in love despite the disparity in their ages and academic level, this only leads to the truism that
the heart has reason of its own which reason does not know.

Finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of Code of
Ethics governing school teachers would have no basis. Private respondent utterly failed to show that petitioner took
advantage of her position to court her student. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual
societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.

Jenie San Juan dela Cruz vs Ronald Paul S. Gracia, in his capacity as City Civil Registrar

G.R. No. 177728, July 31, 2009

FACTS:

Jenie was denied the registration of her child's birth because the document attached to the Affidavit to use the Surname
of the Father (AUSF) entitled "Autobiography," did not include the signature of the deceased father, and because he
was born out of wedlock and the father unfortunately died prior to his birth and has no more capacity to acknowledge
his paternity to the child.

Jenie and the child promptly filed a complaint for injunction/registration of name against Gracia. The trial court held that
even if Dominique, the father, was the author of the unsigned handwritten Autobiography, the same does not contain
any express recognition of paternity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the unsigned handwritten instrument of the deceased father of minor Christian can be considered as a
recognition of paternity.

RULING:

Yes.

Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA 9255, permits an illegitimate child to use the surname of his/her
father if the latter had previously recognized him/her as his offspring through an admission made in a pubic of private
handwritten instrument.

Article 176, as amended, does not explicitly state that there must be a signature by the putative father in the private
handwritten instrument.

The following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any private
handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made:

MOYA VS DEL FIERRO 69 PHIL 199 (1939)

In this petition for review by certiorari of the judgment of the CA declaring del Fierro as the candidate-elect
mayor of Paracale, Camarines Norte with a majority vote over Moya. He contended that the CA committed errors in
admitting and counting in favor of del Fierro several ballots.The SC dismissed the petition because in result even if
theballots contested are counted in favor of Moya, del Fierro stillwins by one vote.The SC avers that in republicanism,
the citizens have thevoice in the government and whenever called upon to act injustifiable cases to give it efficacy and
not to stifle. This is thefundamental reason for the rule that ballots should be readand appreciated if not with utmost,
with reasonable liberality

1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation, there should
be strict compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and
2) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence, it suffices
that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is
merely corroborative of such other evidence.

Categories: Persons and Family Relations

Villavicencio vs Lukban L-14639

Facts:

Justo Lukban as Manila Mayor together with the police officer, took custody of 170 women at the night of October 25
beyond the latter's consent and knowledge and thereafter were shipped to Davao City where they were signed as
laborers.

A writ of habeas corpus was filed against the mayor on behalf of those women. The court granted the writ, but the
mayor was not able to bring any of the women before the court on the stipulated date.

Issue:

Whether or not the act of mayor has a legal basis.

Held:

The supreme court said that the mayor's acts were not legal. His intent of exterminating vice was commendable, but
there was no law saying that he could force filipino women to change their domicile from manila to nother place. The
women, said the court, although in a sense "lepers of society" were still filipino citizens and such they were entitled to
the constitutional enjoyed by all other filipino citizens. The right to freedom of domicile was such a fundamental right
that its suppression could considered tantamount to slavery.

The supreme court upheld the right of filipino citizens to freedom of domicile or the Liberty of abode. "Ours is a
government of laws and not of men."