CASE TITLE GELUZ v CA

GR NO. L-16439 DATE OF DECISION July 20, 1961

PONENTE REYES, JBL
LEGAL BASIS
DOCTRINE/S ARTICLE 20 AND 44 OF THE CIVIL CODE

FACTS: :
Nita Villanueva was impregnated by private respondent Lazo before they were married. Nita had herself
aborted by petitioner Geluz, a physician. After marriage with the respondent, she was again pregnant.
Her pregnancy, proving to be inconvenient, was again aborted by the petitioner. Less than two years
later, she again became pregnant. She underwent through a third abortion performed by the petitioner,
without the knowledge and consent of the respondent Lazo.

Respondent then filed suit for damages based on the third abortion. The court rendered judgment
ordering Geluz to award damages of 3000 pesos. This action was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE/S:

Is the unborn child endowed with personality, such that his parents may recover damages from the
physician who performed the abortion?

RULING:
No. SC rules that Article 2206 does not cover the case of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with
personality.

Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains primarily to the
one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn
child on account of the injuries it received, no such right of action could deliberately accrue to its parents
or heirs.

In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was extinguished by
its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from one that lacked juridical
personality under Article 40 of the Civil Code, which expressly limits such provisional personality by
imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently alive.

This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to collect any damages at all. But such damages must
be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from injury or violation of the rights of the
deceased.
Parents are limited to moral damages, but the respondent's consent to the previous 2 abortions shows no
moral damages to have taken place.

Decision appealed is reversed and complaint is dismissed.

RATIONALE
This case appears twice on the list of readings for Persons as it tackles two articles of note. It tackles
Article 20 as it pertains to seeking damages against the petitioner. It tackles Article 44 as the judicial
personality of the fetus is pertinent to the rulings of this case.
Article 21 is also noteworthy, as the respondents COULD have sought damages on moral basis. But, as
stated in the ruling, their lack of objection to the first 2 abortions shows no moral damages to have taken
place.

JURIS DOCTOR 1A CLASS DIGEST