University of the Philippines College of Law

Legal Bibliography | Fina Bernadette Tantuico

Case Brief by Juvy Lyn A. Dimaano
NAME OF THE CASE: GELUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS, 2 SCRA 801 COURT: SUPREME
COURT
CASE
NUMBER:
G.R.
NO.
16439
JUDGE: REYES, J.B.L., J.
DATE: JULY 20, 1961
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
In 1948, Nita Villanueva came to know Antonio Geluz for the first time. Geluz
was a physician. In 1950, she had herself aborted by Geluz which was then
repeated on two other occasions in years 1953 and 1955. During the most recent
abortion, Oscar Lazo (husband of Villanueva) was campaigning for his election to
the provincial board. He did not know of nor gave his consent to the abortion.
Lazo filed a petition in Court of First Instance of Manila to recover damages
from Geluz who caused the death of his unborn child. The trial court found merit in
Lazos complaint and ordered Geluz to pay P3,000 as damages, P700 as attorneys
fees and the costs of the suit. The court cited Article 2206 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines as the basis of the award. It states that the amount of damages for
death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even
though there may have been mitigating circumstances. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision. Geluz then filed a petition in the
Supreme Court for certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her
abortion, could recover damages from physician who caused the same.
JUDGMENT: The decision appealed from is reversed in favor of the appellant
(Geluz) and the complaint ordered dismissed without costs.
HOLDING: No right to damages could accrue to the parents if no action for such
damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child. Under Article 40 of the
Civil Code, to have provisional personality the child should be subsequently born
alive. This condition was not satisfied, making the argument of Lazo unmeritorious.
The prevailing American jurisprudence is to the same effect.
DICTA: The trial court and Court of Appeals erred in using Article 2206 of the Civil
Code as basis for the award. The minimum award stated in such provision for the
death of a person does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed
with juridical personality. Under Article 40 of the Civil Code, it is incapable of having
rights and obligations. The parents could have been awarded moral damages for the
illegal arrest of the normal development of the foetus and the disappointment of

their parental expectations if the circumstances warrant them. This was not the
case. Lazo was evidently indifferent to the previous abortions and unconcerned with
the frustration of his parental hopes and affections. Therefore, the Court decided
that the claim for damage was without factual or legal basis.