Vestil v.

IAC

G.R. No. 74431 Date: November 06, 1989

Petitioners Purita and Agustin Vestil, petitioners

Respondents IAC, David and Teresita Uy, respondents

Summary

(dog bite) Theness died due to being bitten by the Vestil’s dog. The Vestil are liable for damages as
possessors of the dog under Article 2183.

Facts of the case

Theness (3 years old) was bitten by the Vestil’s dog at the house of Vicente Miranda, Purita Vestil’s late
father while playing with Purita’s daughter. She was treated for multiple lacerated wounds on the
forehead and was administered with an anti-rabies vaccine. She was later re-admitted due to vomiting
of saliva. She died due to broncho-pneumonia. Her parents, the Uys, sued the Vestils for damages,
holding them liable as possessors of the dog, Andoy.

Trial Court: Dismissed the complaint.

Court of Appeal: Theness had died due to the dog bites. Under Article 2183 of the Civil Code., the Vestils
are liable for damages as possessor of the property and the dog.

Defense: The dog was tame and had merely been provoked, although no one had seen it bite Theness.
Additionally, she had died of broncho-pneumonia, which had no correlation to dog bites.

Anyway, she (Purita) could not be held liable because the dog does not belong to her but to Vicente
Miranda, her father. She is not the sole owner of the unpartitioned property, there are other heirs.
There are also other occupants of the house that maintain themselves out of a common fund, they do
not pay rent because of their relation to her father but do occupy the property.

Issue/s

Whether or not the Vestils liable for damages. Yes.

Ratio

The cause of Theness’ death was the dog bites. She developed hydrophobia, a symptom of rabies, and
had died due to broncho-pneumonia, a complication of rabies.

The Vestils are the possessors of the property and Purita is the only heir residing in Cebu City. They use
it as a second home and visited weekly - renting it out to the boarders, paying for utilities and hiring the
maid who cleaned and cooked for the house occupants. An occupant of the household (Marcial Lao)
testified that they maintain the house for business purposes and that he is one of the boarder of said
property.

Liability is due to the possession of the dog, regardless of the ownership of the dog or property. Under
Article 2183, regardless if the animal was tame or vicious or if it had been lost and removed from the
control of the Vestils, liability still attach because one who possesses an animal for utility, pleasure or
service must answer for the damage which the animal may had caused.

Article 2183: The possessor of an animal… is responsible for the damage it may cause… The
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of
the person who suffered damage.

The Vestils are liable for damages for Theness’ death as possessor of Andoy, the dog. Theness is just 3
years old and could not be faulted for any of actions of alleged provocations. Notably, the Vestils had
offered to assist in the hospitalization expense, even if they declared the Uys to merely be their casual
acquaintances only.