ANTONIO GELUZ vs.
COURT OF APPEALS “The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict
July 20, 1961 | Reyes, J.B.L., J | Article 40 of the Civil Code
PETITIONER: Antonio Geluz
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals and Oscar Lazo
SUMMARY: Nita had three abortions which was all performed by Dr. Geluz. Her first
abortion was to conceal her pregnancy to her parents. Her 2nd abortion was due to her
pregnancy becoming inconvenient as she was employed at the COMELEC. After less than
2 years later, she had her 2-month old fetus aborted for P50.00. This happened while her
husband was campaigning for his election and was not aware not give consent to the
abortion. Her husband then filed for an action for the award of damages on the basis of
Art. 2206 of the CC. The TC and COA predicated the award of damages in the sum of 3K
for moral damages. However, SC reversed the decision and held that a parent cannot
invoke the concept of “provisional personality” of a conceived child to obtain
damages for and behalf of an aborted child considering that the conditions set in
Articles 40 and 41 were not met.
DOCTRINE:
Art. 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is
inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is
the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.
Art. 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for
all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified
in the following article.
Art. 41. For civil purposes, the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is
completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the fetus had an intra-uterine
life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after
its complete delivery from the maternal womb.
FACTS:
● Nita Villanueva got pregnant by her present husband before they were legally married.
To hide her pregnancy from her parents she had an abortion done by Geluz, a physician,
as advised by her aunt.
● After Nita’s marriage, she got pregnant again and was employed in the Commission on
Elections. She proved her pregnancy to be inconvenient so she had herself aborted again
by Geluz on October 1953.
● Less than 2 years later, she again became pregnant and her 2-month old fetus aborted by
Geluz for P50.00
● During the same time, Nita’s husband was campaigning in the province of Cagayan and
did not know nor gave consent to the abortion. This led him to file an action for damages.
● The Trial Court and Court of Appeals awarded damages of P3,000.06 upon the
provisions on the initial paragraph of Article 2206 of the Civil Code which states that:
shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have
been mitigating circumstances...”
ISSUE: Whether or not the husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her aborion,
could recover damages from physician who caused the same - NO
HELD:
● The decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint ordered dismissed. Without
costs.
RATIONALE:
● Article 2206 of the Civil code, in fixing a minimum award of P3,000.00 for the death of
a person, does not cover the case of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with personality.
● Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains
primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could be
instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no such
right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs.
● 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
on that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity as distinguished from
capacity to act).
● It is no answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro
nato habetur) 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 with provided it be born later with the condition specified in
Article 41 of the same code.
● In the present case, there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its
mother's womb.
● The parents could have however obtain damages in their own right against Geluz who
caused the abortion for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the fetus on
account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss and dissappointment of their parental
expectations IF NOT SHOWN to have consented or acquiesced to the abortion. But in
this case, even after learning about the 3rd abortion, Nita’s husband seemed to take no
interest in the administrative and criminal cases against Galuz and his indemnity claim
for 50K damages and 3K attorney’s fees was clearly exaggerated.