Geluz vs.

CA
G.R. L-16439/2 SCRA 801, July 20, 1961, Reyes, J.B.L., J

Jeric Abesamis Law 100 Persons Group B4

FACTS

Case is a petition for certiorari to review a CoA decision ordering Geluz, petitioner, to
pay damages to Oscar Lanzo for the formers compliance to abort unborn child of
Lanzos wife, Nita Villanueva. Nita was pregnant twice beforehand, and in both times,
she underwent abortion under Geluz. When she was pregnant the third time, she also
went to Geluz for abortion, but without the consent of Lanzo. Thus, Lanzo files civil
action for damages against Geluz, which was sustained by the CoA. Thus, Geluz files this
petition for certiorari of CoA decision to the SC.

ISSUES/HELD

Given that abortion is illegal, can Oscar Lanzo recover damages from Geluz? NO.

RATIONALE

Court rules on the negative because the unborn child, according to Art. 40 of the [Old]
Civil Code, has yet to have a civil personality, and so action for damages has no legal
basis (Art. 40: Personality begins at birth). If that is the case, legal basis for damages
must be founded on the amount of harm the abortion has done to the parents, whether
physically or emotionally. Since it is apparent that Oscar Lanzo was indifferent to the
previous abortions of his wife, civil action for the third abortion is most likely a ruse to
compel Geluz to pay damages, thereby enriching Lanzo. Thus, even though Geluz indeed
violated abortion law by complying to do the procedure, CoA decision is reversed,
damages must not be granted.

*IMPORTANT NOTE: Provision on the start of civil personality superceded by P.D.
603, ART. 5, which states that personality begins at conception. If this rule were
already in force at the time, action for damages would have had legal basis on the harm
done to the unborn child.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

None.