Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GELUZ
vs.
G.R.
No.
L-16439,
COURT
July
OF
20,
APPEALS
1961
FACTS:
Her present husband impregnated Nita Villanueva before they were
legally married. Desiring to conceal her pregnancy from the parent,
she had herself aborted by petitioner Antonio Geluz. After her
marriage, she again became pregnant. As she was then employed
in the COMELEC and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she
had herself aborted again by Geluz. Less than 2 years later, Nita
incurred a third abortion of a two-month old fetus, in consideration
of the sum of P50.00. Her husband did not know of, nor consented
to the abortion. Hence Oscar Lazo, private respondent, sued
petitioner for damages based on the third and last abortion.
The trial court rendered judgment ordering Antonio Geluz to pay
P3,000.00 as damages, P700.00 as attorneys fee and the cost of
the
suit.
Court
of
Appeals
affirmed
the
decision.
ISSUE:
Is an unborn child covered with personality so that if the unborn
child incurs injury, his parents may recover damages from the ones
who
caused
the
damage
to
the
unborn
child?
RULING:
Personality begins at conception. This personality is called
presumptive personality. It is, of course, essential that birth should
occur later, otherwise the fetus will be considered as never having
possessed
legal
personality.
Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of injury or
death pertains primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if
no action for damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn
child on account of injuries it received, no such right of action could
derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of
action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was
extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to
anyone can take place from one that lacked juridical personality.
It is no answer to invoke the presumptive personality of a
conceived child under Article 40 of the Civil Code because that
same article expressly limits such provisional personality by
imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born
alive. In the present case, the child was dead when separated from
its
mothers
womb.
This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to damages.
However, such damages must be those inflicted directly upon
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the fetus is a legitimate dependent?
2. Whether or not a person has to be born before it could die?
HELD:
1. Yes. In the first place, the fact of marriage between Hortillano
and his wife was never put in question, hence they are presumed to