FACTS:
Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant
(Antonio Geluz) for the first time in 1948 — through her aunt Paula Yambot. In
1950 she became pregnant by her present husband before they were legally
married. Desiring to conceal her pregnancy from her parent, and acting on the
advice of her aunt, she had herself aborted by the defendant. After her
marriage with the plaintiff, she again became pregnant. As she was then
employed in the Commission on Elections and her pregnancy proved to be
inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by the defendant in October 1953.
Less than two years later, she again became pregnant. On February 21, 1955,
accompanied by her sister Purificacion and the latter's daughter Lucida, she
again repaired to the defendant's clinic on Carriedo and P. Gomez streets in
Manila, where the three met the defendant and his wife. Nita was again aborted,
of a two-month old foetus, in consideration of the sum of fifty pesos,
Philippine currency. The plaintiff was at this time in the province of Cagayan,
campaigning for his election to the provincial board; he did not know of, nor
gave his consent, to the abortion. It is the third and last abortion that
constitutes plaintiff's basis in filing this action and award of damages. Upon
application of the defendant Geluz we granted certiorari.
ISSUE:
Did the Plaintiff have the right for damages in behalf
of his unborn child?
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment