7. Cabañas v. Pilapil, 58 SCRA 94, G.R. No. L-25843.

July 25, 1974

Topic/Content: Elements of the State – Government – Doctrine of Parens Patriae

Doctrine: Government may act for the State as parens patriae or guardian of the rights of the
people, who may be disadvantaged or suffering from some disability or misfortune.

Summary:
Florentino Pilapil had an illegitimate child, Milan Pilapil, with the plaintiff Melchora Cabanas.
Florentino Pilapil had insured himself and instituted his child to be the beneficiary, with his brother
Francisco as the trustee during the child’s minority. Upon Florentino’s death, the proceeds were
paid to Francisco and Melchora, with whom the child is living, filed a complaint seeking the delivery
of such sum. Defendant would justify his claim to retain the amount by invoking the terms of the
insurance policy. Lower court rendered judgment ordering defendant to deliver the said proceeds
of the policy to the plaintiff, relying on Article 320 and 321 of the Civil Code (which states that the
father or his absence, the mother is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child).

The Court further held that this is supported by another cogent consideration, 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. This case has 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. Decision of the lower court is affirmed.

8. Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, 75 Phil. 113 G.R. No. L-5a. November 16, 1945.
Topic/Content: Elements of the State – Government – De facto government

Elements of the State – Sovereignty – Effects of the Belligerent Occupation

Doctrine: A De Facto government is a government of fact, actually exercises power or control

without the legal title, there are three kinds of de facto government:
1) that which takes possession or control, or usurps by force or by the voice of the majority
2) established by inhabitants of a territory who rise in insurrection against the parent state
3) that which is established by the invading forces of an enemy who occupy a territory in the
course of war – de facto government of paramount force

Summary:
Co Kim Cham had a pending civil case initiated during the Japanese occupation with the CFI of
Manila. After the liberation of the Manila and the American re-occupation, respondent Judge Dizon
refused to continue hearings, saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur
had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the defunct
Republic of the Philippines.

The Court decided on the following issues, two of which are:

1. Whether the government established during the Japanese occupation was a de facto
government. The Court held yes, it was a de facto government, that which is established and
maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy during the course
 of war, such as that in Mexico occupied the by the troops of the United States during the
Mexico war.
2. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation were
valid and remained valid even after the liberation or re-occupation of the American forces; It is
argued with insistence that the courts of the Commonwealth continued in the Philippines by the
belligerent occupant became also courts of Japan, and their judgments and proceedings being
acts of foreign courts cannot now be considered valid and continued by the courts of the
Commonwealth Government after the restoration of the latter.

9. Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil. 856, G.R. No. L-409. January 30, 1947
Topic/Content: Elements of the State – Sovereignty – Effects of the Belligerent Occupation

Doctrine: Sovereignty is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable

and imprescriptible; During the belligerent occupation, what the belligerent took over was only the
exercise of acts of sovereignty. Further, the rule suspending political laws does not apply to the law
on treason.

Summary:
Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who
adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be
prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal
Code, for the reason that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and,
consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended.

The Supreme Court held that upon enemy military occupation, the sovereignty of the legitimate
government cannot be suspended; but, rather, that the ability to exercise the rights of sovereignty
merely passes to the belligerent occupant.

The Court denied the Laurel’s petition. The Court held that a citizen owes an absolute and
permanent allegiance. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory
occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by
the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not
transferred thereby to the occupier. The Court held that upon enemy military occupation, the
sovereignty of the legitimate government cannot be suspended; but, rather, that the ability to
exercise the rights of sovereignty merely passes to the belligerent occupant. Article 114 of the
Revised Penal Code, was applicable to treason committed against the national security of the
legitimate government, because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their
allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation. The change of our form of government from
Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of
treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same
government and the same sovereign people.