You are on page 1of 2

Guada Fatima A.

Hernandez Saturday 10:00-12:00 pm

Legal Writing Exercise Number 4

1. The applicable law are as follows:

a. Article 2183 of the New Civil Code

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 damages should come from force majeure from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage.

According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not
based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of
the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity on the principle of social
interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for
the damage which such animal may cause. (Purita Miranda Vestil and Agustin Vestil vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, David Uy and Teresita Uy, G.R. No. 74431, November 6,

b. RA 9452- Anti-Rabies Act of 2007

Section 5- Responsibilities of a Dog Owner:

f. Assist the dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical expenses incurred
and other incidental expenses relative to the victims injury.

2. Related Case:

Purita Miranda Vestil and Agustin Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, David Uy and
Teresita Uy G.R. No 74431, November 6, 1989


Thenes Uy was bitten by a dog while she was playing with the child of the petitioner in
the house of late Vicente Miranda. The child was brought to the Cebu General Hospital,
where she was treated and was administered an anti-rabies vaccine. The child was
discharged after nine days but was readmitted one week after due to vomiting of saliva.
The child died the following day and the cause of death according to the certification is
bronchial pneumonia.

Uys sued for damages. They contended that the Vestils are liable for damages since they
are liable for damages since they are in possession of the dog that bit and killed the child.
Vestils on the other hand argued that the dog belongs to the deceased Vicente Miranda
and she is not the owner it, and no one witnessed the incident.

Issue: Whether or not Purita Vestil is liable under Art. 2183?

Held: Yes.
The contention of Purita Vestil that she does not own the dog is untenable. The dog itself
remained in the house even after the death of Vicente Miranda in 1973 and until 1975,
when the incident in question occurred. The petitioners also offered to assist the Uys with
the hospital expenses. The link between the cause of death which is Broncho Pnuemonia
and the dog bite was clearly established. It was stressed out by one of the witnesses that
Broncho Pneumonia is a complication on Rabies.

The petitioners contention that they cannot exercise remote control over the dog is
unacceptable. Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if animal has
escaped or be lost and so be removed from his control. And it does not matter either that,
as the petitioners also contend, the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child
into biting her. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones
as long as they cause injury.