NCC 40 41 CASES

GELUZ VS CA
Unborn fetus without personality. Award for death of a person does not
cover unborn fetus. An unborn fetus is not endowed with personality and is
incapable of having rights and obligations
Ponente: Reyes
FACTS:
Nita Gonzales had three abortions, all of which were performed by the
petitioner Antonio Geluz. On the third abortion, her husband, Oscar Lazo filed
a civil case for damages before the CFI. The decision was made in favor of
Oscar Lazo. Appelate court likewise ruled in favor of Nita and Oscar.
ISSUE:
W/N the husband of a woman who voluntarily procured an abortion
could recover damages from the physician who caused the same.

DECISION:
Parents of an unborn fetus cannot sue damages on its behalf. An action
for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains
primarily to the injured, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to
the parents or heirs of an unborn child. Appealed decision reversed.

QUIMIGING VS ICAO
A conceived child, although yet unborn, is given by law a provisional
personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it. It has a right to support
from its progenitors even if it is yet to be born
PONENTE: REYES
FACTS:
Respondent Icao had repeatedly raped the appellant, as such, she got
pregnant. Quimiging filed a civil case for support and damages, which was
denied by the CFI.

ISSUE:
W/N an unborn child is entitled to support
DECISION:
According to the court, an unborn child has a right to support from its
progenitors- Icao, even if the child is only just a conceived child. It is entitled
to receive donations as prescribed in article 742 of the civil code.
NOTE: applying art 40, though it was clearly stated that a conceived child
shall be considered born for all purposes that is favorable to it, provided it be
born. However, this proviso is not a condition precedent to the right of the
conceived child.

DE JESUS VS SYQUIA
FC Art 164: Children conceived or born during the marriage of the
parents are legitimate
PONENTE: STREET
FACTS:
The respondent, cesar syquia had an affair with the appellant, which
resulted in De Jesus giving birth to a male child, named Ismael Loanco. For a
while, Syquia supported the child, the stopped. Antonia filed a civil case
against Syquia to recover damages from breach of promise to marry and to
recognize Ismael as his natural child and pay maintenance for him. The lower
court entered a decree for Syquia to recognize Ismael as his natural child and
pay fifty pesos maintenance fee. Case was appealed by both parties.
ISSUE:
W/N Ismael Loanco had been in the uninterrupted possession of the
status of natural child
DECISION:
The majority opinion is that Cesar Syquia has expressly acknowledged
his paternity of the child, Ismael Loanco. Secondly, that said child has
enjoyed the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural son of said
defendant justified by his direct acts.

Note: case cant be tied up to art 40 or 41.

DEATH

LIMJOCO VS INTESTATE ESTATE OF PIO FRAGANTE

The estate should be considered an artificial or juridical person for the
purposes of the settlement and distribution of his estate, which include the
exercise during the judicial administration thereof of those rights and
fulfillment of obligations of his which have survived after his death.
PONENTE: HILADO
FACTS:
Pedro Fragante, before his death, filed an application to maintain and
operate an ice plant in San Juan. The Public Service Commission granted a
certificate of public convenience issued to his intestate estate, authorizing its
special or judicial administrator appointed by the proper court to maintain
and operate the ice plant industry. This ruling was questioned by angel
limjoco, the petitioner.
ISSUE:
W/N the intestate estate of pio fragante is entitled to the certificate of
public convenience
HELD:
The court ruled that the estate of P.O.F. should be considered as a
juridical person for the purpose of settlement and distribution of his estate. It
shall also include the exercise of those rights and the fulfillment of
obligations which survived his death.
The chief justice of the court which decided this case used the rules of court
at that time, which stated that, unless expressly provided by law, any action
affecting the property or rights of a deceased person which maybe brought
by or against him if he were alive, may likewise be instituted by his estate
administrator, unless the action is for recovery of money or debt; because by

its very nature, it cannot survive, because death extinguishes the right. (The
ruling is almost similar to what is provided in art 42.)

DUMLAO VS QUALITY PLASTICS PRODUCTS

Service of summons on a dead person is void. His juridical personality,
which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, was lost through
death.
PONENTE: AQUINO
FACTS:
Oria and the other defendants in a civil case were ordered to pay
Quality Plastics for damages. Failure of payment would mean foreclosure of
the bond which was secured by attachment of real properties belonging to
Oria. The property was eventually sold. It was not known to quality plastics
that Oria died even before the case was filed. His heirs all surnamed Dumlao
filed a case for annulment on the judgement against Dumlao. The lower
court denied the petitionerss request, said that court already acquired
jurisdiction over the person of oria. Case was appealed.
ISSUE:
W/N court has jurisdiction over Oria
HELD:
It was clear that the court has no jurisdiction over Oria. The judgment
against him is patent nullity. He could not have been validly served
summons, because his death extinguished his civil personality. The lower
courts decision is reversed. Execution sale of Orias lot is also void.

EUGENIO VS VELEZ
The right to bury a dead person does not include a common-law
husband who is still married.

PONENTE: PADILLA
FACTS:
Vitaliana Vargas was forcibly taken from her residence by Tomas
Eugenio and confined her in his residence. She became the common law wife
of the appellant. It was alleged that Vitaliana died of heart failure due to
toxemia of pregnancy. Unaware of her death, her full brothers and sisters
filed before the RTC a petition for habeas corpus. Although the court issued
the writ, it was not satisfied. The appellant filed an urgent motion to dismiss,
arguing that a dead persons body cannot be the subject of habeas corpus.
The court allowed vitalianas kin to amend their complaint. Claiming that
they only knew of the death after they have filed the writ of habeas corpus,
they alleged that petitioner, Eugenio is not in a way related to vitaliana, thus
has no duty to bury her.
ISSUE:
WHO has the rightful custody over the dead body
HELD:
The Vargases contend that invoking art 305 and 308 of the civil code,
as the next of kin, they are the legal custodians of the dead body of their
sister vitaliana.
According to the court, applying order of preference to give support
under art 294, since there was no surviving spouse, the brothers and sisters
were preferred over the petitioner who was merely a common law spouse.
Section 1103 of the revised administrative code also provides for a
justification as to who has the duty to bury a dead person.

MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS

Death of Mr. Marcos has not changed the factual scenario under which
the courts decision was rendered.
EN BANC:
FACTS:
President Aquino did not allow the remains of former President Marcos
to return to the Phils for the tranquility of the state and order of society. A
motion of reconsideration was filed by the heirs of the deposed president.
The contend that to bar the former president from returning to the phils is to
deny them not only the inherent right of citizens to return to their country of
birth, but also the protection of the constitution and all the rights guaranteed
to Filipinos under the constitution.
HELD:
The death of Mr Marcos, although it may be viewed as a supervening
event, has not changed the factual scenario under which the courts decision
was rendered. The threats to the government, to which the return of the
marcoses has been viewed to have a catalytic effect, have not been shown
to have ceased.

DISSENTING OPINION OF PARAS:

1. The former president, although already dead is still entitled to certain
rights. RPC prohibits the commission of libel against a dead person.
2. Alleged threats to national security have remained unproven.
3. Reconciliation can proceed to a faster pace if the petition to return is gr

NCC 10
ARMANDO BARCELLANO VS DOLORES BANAS
Where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no
room for interpretation
PONENTE: PEREZ
FACTS:
Respondent Dolores Bans, an heir of Bartolome Bans owned a lot in
Bacacay, Albay. Adjoining the said lot is a property owned by Vicente Medina.
In 1997, Medina offered his lot for sale to the owners of the adjoining lots.
The property was eventually sold to Armando Barcellano. The heirs of Bans
contested the sale, and conveyed their intention to redeem the property.
However, according to Medina, the deed of sale has been executed. There
was also mention that the Bans heirs failed to give the amount required by
medina for them to redeem the lot. Action to redeem the property was filed
before the RTC. It denied the petition on the ground that the Bans heirs
failed to exercise their right to redemption within the period provided in
article 1623 of NCC. On appeal, such ruling was reversed.
ISSUE:
W/N the RTC decision to deny the Bans heirs of their right of legal
redemption is valid
HELD:
The court denied the petition, and affirmed the appellate court decision
granting the Bans heirs the right to redeem the subject property. The
decision was based on the provisions of article 1623 NCC. A written notice
must be issued by the prospective vendor. Nothing in the record and
pleadings submitted by the parties showed that there was a written notice
sent to the respondents. Without a written notice, the period of 30 days
within which the right of legal redemption may be exercised does not exist.
In this case, the law was clear. A written notice by the vendor is
mandatory.

RESTRICTIONS ON CAPACITY TO ACT: INSANITY

PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF-APELLEE VS ANICETO BULAGAO

Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the
burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence
PONENTE: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Bulagao was charged with two counts of rape for
the crime commited against AAA, 14 year old girl. It was known that the
accused was not a biological brother of the victim. Case was filed in the RTC.
During the trial, a clinical psychologist testified that accused was suffering
from mental retardation, for he had an IQ of below 50. Despite this fact that
was alleged as defense of the accused, he was convicted and charged with a
penalty of death. RTC judge noted that the psychological examination of the
accused was performed years after the dates of the complained incidents,
and according to the psychologist, though the accused was of such mental
state, that he has the capacity to discern right from wrong.
The instant appeal was denied. The penalty was reduced to reclusion
perpetua in each of the two counts of rape.
ISSUE:
W/N insanity can be used as an exempting circumstance in this instant
case
HELD:
The court agreed with the findings of the trial court that there was no
proof of the accuseds mental condition being present at the time of the rape
incident. The court observed that neither the acts of the accused proven
before the court, nor his answere=s in his testimony, show complete
deprivation of intelligence or free will. Insanity presupposes that the accused
was completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the
time of the commission of the crime. Only when there is complete
deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime shold

the exempting circumstance of insanity be considered. The penalty imposed

by the court of appeals is affirmed.