GELUZ v CA (1961) 2 SCRA 801

FACTS:

- Nita Villanueva had three abortions with Dr. Antonio Geluz which Oscar Lazo, the husband, is
not aware of

- Husband filed for damages of P3000 by virtue of Art 2206 which CA sustained

ISSUE: WON husband can claim damages for the death of the unborn fetus?

HELD: No. The fetus was not yet born and thus does not have civil personality. According to
Article 40, birth determines personality. In this case, the fetus does not yet possess a personality
to speak of because it was aborted in uterus. The child should be born before the parents can
seek any recovery for damages. Action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or
death pertains primarily to the one injured. There could be no action for such damages that can
be instituted on behalf of the unborn child for the injuries it received because it lacked juridical
personality. The damages which the parents of an unborn child can recover are limited to moral
damages, in this case, for the act of the appellant Geluz to perform the abortion. However, moral
damages cannot also be recovered because the wife willingly sought the abortion, and the
husband did not further investigate on the causes of the abortion. Furthermore, the husband did
not seem to have taken interest in the administrative and criminal cases against the appellant,
but was more concerned in obtaining from the doctor a large money payment.

NOTE BENE: In the Philippines, people who seek pecuniary damages for loss of relatives are seen
in a negative light. It gives the impression that “you’re just after the money.” But it should not be
the case.