Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Geluz Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Dan Anthony Barriga
    The Supreme Court ruled that a husband cannot recover damages from a physician for abortions performed on his wife. While parents can claim moral damages for the loss of an unborn child, there was no basis for an award in this case since the husband was indifferent to his wife's previous abortions. Personality and the right to life apply at birth, not before. Therefore, an unborn fetus cannot be the subject of a suit for damages on its behalf.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Geluz Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Dan Anthony Barriga
    32 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a husband cannot recover damages from a physician for abortions performed on his wife. While parents can claim moral damages for the loss of an unborn child, there was no basis for an award in this case since the husband was indifferent to his wife's previous abortions. Personality and the right to life apply at birth, not before. Therefore, an unborn fetus cannot be the subject of a suit for damages on its behalf.

    Original Title

    Geluz vs CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a husband cannot recover damages from a physician for abortions performed on his wife. While parents can claim moral damages for the loss of an unborn child, there was no basis for an award in this case since the husband was indifferent to his wife's previous abortions. Personality and the right to life apply at birth, not before. Therefore, an unborn fetus cannot be the subject of a suit for damages on its behalf.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views2 pages

    Geluz Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Dan Anthony Barriga
    The Supreme Court ruled that a husband cannot recover damages from a physician for abortions performed on his wife. While parents can claim moral damages for the loss of an unborn child, there was no basis for an award in this case since the husband was indifferent to his wife's previous abortions. Personality and the right to life apply at birth, not before. Therefore, an unborn fetus cannot be the subject of a suit for damages on its behalf.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GELUZ V.

    CA [2 S 801 (1961)] –
    F: Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant (Antonio Geluz) for the first time
    in 1948-- thru her aunt. In 1950, she became preganant by her present husband
    before they were legally married. During to conceal her pregnancy from her
    parent, she had herself aborted by def. After the marriage w/ the pltff., she again
    became pregnant. As she was employed in the COMELEC and her pregnancy
    proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by def. in Oct 1953.
    Less than 2 years later, she again became pregnant. On 2/21/55, she again
    repaired to the def's clinic. Nita was again aborted of a 2-month old foetus, in
    consideration of the sum of P50. It is the third and last abortion that constitutes
    pltff's basis in filing this action and award of damages The CA and the trial court
    predicated the award of damages upon the provisions of the initial par. of Art.
    2206 of the NCC.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could recover
    damages from the physician who caused the same?

    RULING:
    NO. This award, we believe, to be error for the said art., in fixing an award for the
    death of a person, does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not
    endowed w/ personality.

    RATIO: Parents of unborn foetus cannot sue for damages on its behalf. A
    husband of a woman who voluntarily procured her abortion could not recover
    damages from the physician who caused the same.
    (1) Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of person¬al injury or
    death pertains primarily to the injured, no such right of action could deriva¬tively
    accrue to the parents or heirs of an unborn child. 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 (or juridical capacity, as distinguished from capacity to act). It
    is no answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus
    pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the Civil Cod, because that same article
    expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the
    child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with the
    condition specified in the following article." In the present case, there is no
    dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.
    (2) 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 the injury or violation of the rights of the deceased, his right to
    life and physical integrity. Because the parents cannot expect either help, support
    or services from an unborn child, they would nor¬mally be limited to moral
    damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the spes hominis that
    was the foetus, i.e., on account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss, and
    the disappointment of their parental expectations (Art. 2217, CC), as well as to
    exemplary damages, if the circumstances should warrant them (Art. 2230, CC).
    But in this case, there is no basis for an award of moral damages, evidently
    because the husband's indifference to the previous abortions clearly indicates
    that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and affection.

    You might also like