Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Damages - Vestil Vs Iac

    Uploaded by

    Tea Ann
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused by their dog biting and killing Theness Uy. While the Vestils claimed the dog belonged to their deceased father and was tame, Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor of an animal liable for any damages it causes. The court determined that hydrophobia Theness developed from the dog bites led to bronchopneumonia and her death, despite the death certificate listing a different cause. The Vestils were responsible as possessors of the dog under the law.

    Copyright:

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

    Damages - Vestil Vs Iac

    Uploaded by

    Tea Ann
    27 views2 pages
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused by their dog biting and killing Theness Uy. While the Vestils claimed the dog belonged to their deceased father and was tame, Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor of an animal liable for any damages it causes. The court determined that hydrophobia Theness developed from the dog bites led to bronchopneumonia and her death, despite the death certificate listing a different cause. The Vestils were responsible as possessors of the dog under the law.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Damages - Vestil vs Iac

    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 Vestils were found liable for damages caused by their dog biting and killing Theness Uy. While the Vestils claimed the dog belonged to their deceased father and was tame, Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor of an animal liable for any damages it causes. The court determined that hydrophobia Theness developed from the dog bites led to bronchopneumonia and her death, despite the death certificate listing a different cause. The Vestils were responsible as possessors of the dog under the law.

    Copyright:

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

    Damages - Vestil Vs Iac

    Uploaded by

    Tea Ann
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused by their dog biting and killing Theness Uy. While the Vestils claimed the dog belonged to their deceased father and was tame, Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor of an animal liable for any damages it causes. The court determined that hydrophobia Theness developed from the dog bites led to bronchopneumonia and her death, despite the death certificate listing a different cause. The Vestils were responsible as possessors of the dog under the law.

    Copyright:

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

    VESTIL vs.

    IAC
    G. R. No. 74431
    November 6, 1989
    Topic: Article 2183: The possessor of an animal or whoever may
    make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may
    cause, although it may escape or be lost. 'This responsibility shall
    cease only in case the damages should come from force
    majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.

    FACTS:
    Theness Uy was bitten by a dog (Andoy) while she was playing with a
    child of the Vestils and eventually died. The cause of death was
    certified as broncho-pneumonia. 

    The Uys sued for damages, alleging that the Vestils were liable as the
    possessors of the dog. The Vestils answered that the dog belonged to
    their deceased father, Miranda, that it was a tame animal, and that
    she died not by reason of the dog’s bite as evidenced by her death
    certificate.

    ISSUE: Whether the Vestils are liable for damages for the death of
    Theness.

    RULING: Yes.
    The Vestiles’ contention that they could not be expected to exercise
    control of the dog is not acceptable. Article 2183 of the Civil Code
    holds the possessor liable even if the animal should "escape or be
    lost" and so be removed from his control. It does not matter if the
    dog was tame. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but
    covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury. 

    According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the


    Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of
    vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the
    damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social
    interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or
    service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. 

    Theness developed hydrophobia, a symptom of rabies, as a result of


    the dog bites, and that asphyxia broncho-pneumonia, which
    ultimately caused her death, was a complication of rabies. That
    Theness became afraid of water after she was bitten by the dog.

    The death certificate is not conclusive proof of the cause of death but
    only of the fact of death. Indeed, the evidence of the child's
    hydrophobia is sufficient to convince the Court that she died because
    she was bitten by the dog even if the death certificate stated a
    different cause of death.

    ---
    DP: We sustain the findings of the Court of Appeals and approve the
    monetary awards except only as to the medical and hospitalization
    expenses, which are reduced to P2,026.69, as prayed for in the
    complaint. While there is no recompense that can bring back to the
    private respondents the child they have lost, their pain should at
    least be assuaged by the civil damages to which they are entitled.

    You might also like