ANTONIO GELUZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.

L-
16439 July 20, 1961
ANTONIO GELUZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961
2 SCRA 801

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 them, as distinguished from injury or violation of the rights of the deceased child.

Geluz vs. Court of

Appeals2 SCRA
801 July 20
1961Fact of the
Case:
Respondent Oscar
Lazo, the husband
of Nita Villanueva
who voluntarily
procuredher
abortion, filed an
action to recover
damages against
petitioner Antonio
Lazo whocaused
the same. The trial
court rendered
judgment in favor
of plaintiff
Lazo. When
thecase reached
the Court of
Appeals but it
sustained the
award to the
plaintiff. The
Court of Appeals
and the Trial
Court predicated
the award of
damages in the
amount of
P3,000upon the
provision of
Article 2206 of the
Civil Code for the
death of person.
Issue:
(1)Whether or
not an action
for damages
could
be instituted on
behalf of the
unborn child.
(2)Whether or
not the unborn
child acquires
civil
personality.
Held:
No action for
damages could
be instituted on
unborn child
on account of
injuriesit
received, no such
right of action
could derivatively
accrue to its
parent or heirs.
Thelaws states
that civil
personality of the
child commences
at the time of its
conception, provid
ed that it be born
alive or if it had an
intrauterine life of
less the seven
months, thefoetus
is not deemed
born if it dies
within twenty four
hours after its
complete
deliveryfrom the
maternal womb.