8/20/2019 NATURAL PERSONS.docx
1/2
ANTONIO GELUZ vs. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. L-16439, July !,
1961
FACTS:Her present husband impregnated Nita Villanueva before
they werelegally married. esiring to !on!eal her pregnan!y from the
parent"she had herself aborted by petitioner Antonio #elu$. After
hermarriage" she again be!ame pregnant. As she was then
employed
in the C%&'('C and her pregnan!y proved to be in!onvenient"
shehad herself aborted again by #elu$. (ess than ) years later"
Nitain!urred a third abortion of a two*month old fetus" in
!onsiderationof the sum of +,-.--. Her husband did not now of" nor
!onsentedto the abortion. Hen!e %s!ar (a$o" private respondent"
suedpetitioner for damages based on the third and last
abortion. The trial !ourt rendered /udgment ordering Antonio
#elu$ to pay+0"---.-- as damages" +1--.-- as attorney2s fee and the
!ost of the suit. Court of Appeals a3rmed the de!ision.
4SS5':4s an unborn !hild !overed with personality so that if the
unborn
!hild in!urs in/ury" his parents may re!over damages from the
oneswho !aused the damage to the unborn !hild6
75(4N#:+ersonality begins at !on!eption. This personality is
!alledpresumptive personality. 4t is" of !ourse" essential that
birth shouldo!!ur later" otherwise the fetus will be !onsidered as
never havingpossessed legal personality.Sin!e an a!tion for
pe!uniary damages on a!!ount of in/ury ordeath pertains primarily
to the one in/ured" it is easy to see that if no a!tion for
damages !ould be instituted on behalf of the unborn!hild on a!!ount
of in/uries it re!eived" no su!h right of a!tion !ould
derivatively a!!rue to its parents or heirs. 4n fa!t" even if a
!ause of a!tion did a!!rue on behalf of the unborn !hild" the
same wase8tinguished by its pre*natal death" sin!e no transmission
toanyone !an tae pla!e from one that la!ed /uridi!al personality.4t
is no answer to invoe the presumptive personality of a!on!eived
!hild under Arti!le 9- of the Civil Code be!ause thatsame arti!le
e8pressly limits su!h provisional personality byimposing the
!ondition that the !hild should be subseuently bornalive. 4n the
present !ase" the !hild was dead when separated fromits mother2s
womb. This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to
damages.However" su!h damages must be those in;i!ted dire!tly
upon
them" as distinguished from in/ury or violation of the rights of
thede!eased !hild.
CONTINENTAL STEEL vs. "ON. ACCRE#ITE# $OLUNTAR%AR&ITRATO
4n
8/20/2019 NATURAL PERSONS.docx
2/2
be married. Se!ond" !hildren (o)(*+v* o o) during the
marriage of the parents are legitimate. Hen!e" the unborn
!hild
fetusI is already a legitimate dependent the moment it was
!on!eived meeting of the sperm and egg !ellI.
). No. eath is de>ned as B!essation of life. Certainly" a
!hild in
the womb has life. There is no need to dis!uss whether or not
the
unborn !hild a!uired /uridi!al personality J that is not the
issue
here. @ut nevertheless" life should not be euated to !ivil
personality. &oreover" while the Civil Code e8pressly
provides that
!ivil personality may be e8tinguished by death" +/ o*s )o/
*0l+(+/ly s/2/* /2/ o)ly /os* o 2v* 2(5u+* u++(2l
*so)2l+/y (oul +*. 4n this !ase" Hortillano2s fetus had had
life
inside the womb as eviden!ed by the fa!t that it !lung to life
for 0K
wees before the unfortunate mis!arriage. Thus" death o!!urred
on
a dependent hen!e Hortillano as an employee is entitled to
deathbene>t !laims as provided for in their C@A.
)
