Strengthening the family

Article II Section 12 of the Constitution provides that the State shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. In fulfilling this mandate of the Constitution, the State acting thru the proper agency like the Courts can intervene and provide protection to the persons and property of those who because of age or incapacity are not yet able to protect and to take care of themselves fully. When the State so intervenes it is exercising its prerogative of parens patriae which literally means "father of the country" where the State, as sovereign, exercises powers of guardianship over persons under disabilities.

This Constitutional provision strengthening the family under the doctrine of parens patriae is illustrated in this case of Fred and Lita.

Fred and Lita are husband and wife with only one child, Baby. Being the only daughter Baby is the "niña bonita" of Fred. He dotes on Baby and loves her dearly. Apparently Fred loves his daughter more than his wife Lita. Fred’s love for her daughter somehow drove a wedge between him and Lita. Their relationship became a bit shaky. Every incident, no matter how small became reason enough for the spouses to harbor suspicions on each other. So when Fred insured himself, he instituted his daughter Baby as the beneficiary, with his brother Mando, uncle of Baby, and not his wife Lita as trustee during the minority of Baby. When Baby was about 12 years old, Fred died. And so pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the proceeds of the life insurance was given to Mando, Baby’s uncle and not to Lita her mother. Thus, Lita filed a complaint seeking the delivery of the said proceeds to her. Will Lita’s suit prosper?

Yes. The insurance proceeds belong to the beneficiary (Baby). Baby a minor is under the custody and parental authority of Lita, her mother. The said minor lives with her mother, and she acquired the proceeds by lucrative title. Said proceeds therefore belong to the minor child in ownership and in usufruct to the mother. Under our law, the usufructuary (the mother) is entitled to possession (Art. 321 Civil Code), Lita is entitled to the delivery of the insurance proceeds. The trust in favor of Mando is null and void as it conflicts with said law. Furthermore, it would be more 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 different if the conflict were between father and mother and not between uncle and mother. Here it is the mother asserting priority over the uncle. Certainly, the judiciary as the instrumentality of the State in its role of parens patriae cannot remain insensible to the validity of her plea. The family as a unit will be strengthened if the mother is given priority over that of an uncle (Cabana vs. Pilapil 58 SCRA 94).

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]