4. ARTURO PELAYO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs.

MARCELO LAURON, ET AL, Defendants-

Appellees.
G.R. No. 4089. January 12, 1909.

Topic: Sources of Obligations - Law

FACTS:
Arturo Pelayo, a physician residing in Cebu, filed a complaint against Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella
(defendants). He alleged that on October 13, 1906, Pelayo was called to the defendants’ house to render
medical assistance to their daughter-in-law who was about to give birth to a child. Unfortunately, the
daughter-in-law died as a consequence of the said childbirth. The physician prayed that he be paid P500
as the just and equitable value of the services rendered by him together with any other relief that might be
deemed proper. The defendants refused to do so, alleging that their daughter-in-law died in consequence
of said childbirth Further, they also alleged that when she was alive, she lived with her husband
independently and that her stay in their house during the day of childbirth was only accidental and due to
fortuitous circumstances; therefore, they should not be liable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants should be held liable for the fees demanded by the plaintiff upon rendering
medical assistance to the defendants’ daughter-in-law.

Supreme Court Ruling:

No. The Court held that the rendering of medical assistance is one of the obligations to which spouses are
bound by mutual support, expressly determined by law and readily demanded. Therefore, there was no
obligation on the part of the in-laws but rather on the part of the husband who is not a party.

Rule:
ART. 1157. Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts.

ART. 1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in this
Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which
establishes them; and as to what has not been fore- seen, by the provisions of this Book.

Application:
The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness is comprised among the mutual obligations to which
spouses are bound by way of mutual support.

When either of the spouses by reason of illness should be in need of medical assistance, the other is under
the unavoidable obligation to furnish the necessary services of a physician; the party bound to furnish
such support is therefore liable for all expenses, including the fees of the medical expert for his
professional services. This liability originates from the mutual obligation, which the law has expressly
established between the married couple.

In the face of the above legal precepts, it is unquestionable that the person bound to pay the fees due to
the plaintiff for the professional services that he rendered to the daughter-in-law during her childbirth is
the husband of the patient and not her father and mother- in-law. The fact that it was not the husband who
called the plaintiff and requested his assistance for his wife is no bar to the fulfillment of the said
obligation, as the defendants considered that medical assistance was urgently needed in view of the
imminent danger to their daughter-in-law.