RIEYET GUERRA

Legal Disputes- Mr. Banag claimed that his daughter being bitten by his neighbor’s dog at
Annapolis Sr. Cubao Quezon City, and he asked Arthur Sison, the possessor of the dog, to pay
for the damages on what his daughter suffered.

Legal Issue- Whether or not Arthur Sison liable for damages as processor of the dog.

Legal Opinion-

Relevant Laws- Article 2183 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which states that, “The
possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage
which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in
case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage.”

Furthermore, on what happened to Mary was a quasi-delicit as defined by Article 2176 of the
Civil Code: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions.”

Relevant Jurisprudence- Thus, (Vestil v. IAC G.R. No. 74431 Date: November 06, 1989)
Theness Tan Uy died at the age of three being bitten by the Vestil dog. The Vestils rejected the
charge, insisting that the dog belonged to the deceased Vicente Miranda. Even though, Vestil
claimed that he was not the owner of the dog but under Article 2183 the Vestil are liable as
possessor of the dog. Same case with Mr. Banag daughter asked Arthur Sison to pay the
damages it may cause.