Vestil v.

IAC
G.R. No. 74431 Date: November 06, 1989

petitioners Purita and Agustin Vestil, petitioners

respondents IAC, David and Teresita Uy, respondents

summary
(dog bite) Theness died due to being bitten by the Vestil’s dog. The Vestil are liable for
damages as possessors of the dog under Article 2183.

facts of the case

Theness (3 years old) was bitten by the Vestil’s dog at the house of Vicente Miranda,
Purita Vestil’s late father while playing with Purita’s daughter. She was treated for
multiple lacerated wounds on the forehead and was administered with an anti-rabies
vaccine. She was later re-admitted due to vomiting of saliva. She died due to broncho-
pneumonia. Her parents, the Uys, sued the Vestils for damages, holding them liable as
possessors of the dog, Andoy.

Trial Court: Dismissed the complaint.

Court of Appeal: Theness had died due to the dog bites. Under Article 2183 of the
Civil Code., the Vestils are liable for damages as possessor of the property and the dog.
Defense: The dog was tame and had merely been provoked, although no one had seen
it bite Theness. Additionally, she had died of broncho-pneumonia, which had no
correlation to dog bites.
Anyway, she (Purita) could not be held liable because the dog does not belong to her but
to Vicente Miranda, her father. She is not the sole owner of the unpartitioned property,
there are other heirs. There are also other occupants of the house that maintain
themselves out of a common fund, they do not pay rent because of their relation to her
father but do occupy the property.

Issue/s
Whether or not the Vestils liable for damages. Yes.

Ratio
The cause of Theness’ death was the dog bites. She developed hydrophobia, a symptom
of rabies, and had died due to broncho-pneumonia, a complication of rabies.

The Vestils are the possessors of the property and Purita is the only heir residing in
Cebu City. They use it as a second home and visited weekly - renting it out to the
boarders, paying for utilities and hiring the maid who cleaned and cooked for the house
occupants. An occupant of the household (Marcial Lao) testified that they maintain the
house for business purposes and that he is one of the boarder of said property.

Liability is due to the possession of the dog, regardless of the ownership of the dog or
property. Under Article 2183, regardless if the animal was tame or vicious or if it had
been lost and removed from the control of the Vestils, liability still attach because one
who possesses an animal for utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage
which the animal may had caused.
 Article 2183: The possessor of an animal… is responsible for the damage it may
cause… The responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from
force majeure or from the fault of the person who suffered damage.

The Vestils are liable for damages for Theness’ death as possessor of Andoy, the dog.
Theness is just 3 years old and could not be faulted for any of actions of alleged
provocations. Notably, the Vestils had offered to assist in the hospitalization expense,
even if they declared the Uys to merely be their casual acquaintances only.