Republic of the Philippines damages.

Upon application of the defendant Geluz

SUPREME COURT we granted certiorari.
Manila
The Court of Appeals and the trial court predicated
EN BANC the award of damages in the sum of P3,000.06 upon
the provisions of the initial paragraph of Article 2206
G.R. No. L-16439             July 20, 1961 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This we believe to
be error, for the said article, in fixing a minimum
ANTONIO GELUZ, petitioner, award of P3,000.00 for the death of a person, does
vs. not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and OSCAR endowed with personality. Under the system of our
LAZO, respondents. Civil Code, "la criatura abortiva no alcanza la
categoria de persona natural y en consscuencia es un
ser no nacido a la vida del Derecho" (Casso-Cervera,
Mariano H. de Joya for petitioner.
"Diccionario de Derecho Privado", Vol. 1, p. 49), being
A.P. Salvador for respondents.
incapable of having rights and obligations.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of
personal injury or death pertains primarily to the one
This petition for certiorari brings up for review injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such
question whether the husband of a woman, who damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn
voluntarily procured her abortion, could recover child on account of the injuries it received, no such
damages from physician who caused the same. right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents
or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue
The litigation was commenced in the Court of First on behalf of the unborn child, the same was
Instance of Manila by respondent Oscar Lazo, the of extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no
Nita Villanueva, against petitioner Antonio Geluz, a transmission to anyone can take place from on that
physician. Convinced of the merits of the complaint lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity as
upon the evidence adduced, the trial court rendered distinguished from capacity to act). It is no answer to
judgment favor of plaintiff Lazo and against defendant invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child
Geluz, ordering the latter to pay P3,000.00 as (conceptus pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the
damages, P700.00 attorney's fees and the costs of Civil Code, because that same article expressly limits
the suit. On appeal, Court of Appeals, in a special such provisional personality by imposing the condition
division of five, sustained the award by a majority vote that the child should be subsequently born alive:
of three justices as against two, who rendered a "provided it be born later with the condition specified
separate dissenting opinion. in the following article". In the present case, there is
no dispute that the child was dead when separated
The facts are set forth in the majority opinion as from its mother's womb.
follows:
The prevailing American jurisprudence is to the same
Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant effect; and it is generally held that recovery can not
(Antonio Geluz) for the first time in 1948 — had for the death of an unborn child (Stafford vs.
through her aunt Paula Yambot. In 1950 she Roadway Transit Co., 70 F. Supp. 555; Dietrich vs.
became pregnant by her present husband Northampton, 52 Am. Rep. 242; and numerous cases
before they were legally married. Desiring to collated in the editorial note, 10 ALR, (2d) 639).
conceal her pregnancy from her parent, and
acting on the advice of her aunt, she had This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to
herself aborted by the defendant. After her collect any damages at all. But such damages must
marriage with the plaintiff, she again became be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished
pregnant. As she was then employed in the from the injury or violation of the rights of the
Commission on Elections and her pregnancy deceased, his right to life and physical integrity.
proved to be inconvenient, she had herself Because the parents can not expect either help,
aborted again by the defendant in October support or services from an unborn child, they would
1953. Less than two years later, she again normally be limited to moral damages for the illegal
became pregnant. On February 21, 1955, arrest of the normal development of the spes
accompanied by her sister Purificacion and hominis that was the foetus, i.e., on account of
the latter's daughter Lucida, she again distress and anguish attendant to its loss, and the
repaired to the defendant's clinic on Carriedo disappointment of their parental expectations (Civ.
and P. Gomez streets in Manila, where the Code Art. 2217), as well as to exemplary damages, if
three met the defendant and his wife. Nita was the circumstances should warrant them (Art. 2230).
again aborted, of a two-month old foetus, in But in the case before us, both the trial court and the
consideration of the sum of fifty pesos, Court of Appeals have not found any basis for an
Philippine currency. The plaintiff was at this award of moral damages, evidently because the
time in the province of Cagayan, campaigning appellee's indifference to the previous abortions of his
for his election to the provincial board; he did wife, also caused by the appellant herein, clearly
not know of, nor gave his consent, to the indicates that he was unconcerned with the frustration
abortion. of his parental hopes and affections. The lower court
expressly found, and the majority opinion of the Court
It is the third and last abortion that constitutes of Appeals did not contradict it, that the appellee was
plaintiff's basis in filing this action and award of aware of the second abortion; and the probabilities
are that he was likewise aware of the first. Yet despite
the suspicious repetition of the event, he appeared to
have taken no steps to investigate or pinpoint the
causes thereof, and secure the punishment of the
responsible practitioner. Even after learning of the
third abortion, the appellee does not seem to have
taken interest in the administrative and criminal cases
against the appellant. His only concern appears to
have been directed at obtaining from the doctor a
large money payment, since he sued for P50,000.00
damages and P3,000.00 attorney's fees, an
"indemnity" claim that, under the circumstances of
record, was clearly exaggerated.

The dissenting Justices of the Court of Appeals have

aptly remarked that:

It seems to us that the normal reaction of a

husband who righteously feels outraged by
the abortion which his wife has deliberately
sought at the hands of a physician would be
highminded rather than mercenary; and that
his primary concern would be to see to it that
the medical profession was purged of an
unworthy member rather than turn his wife's
indiscretion to personal profit, and with that
idea in mind to press either the administrative
or the criminal cases he had filed, or both,
instead of abandoning them in favor of a civil
action for damages of which not only he, but
also his wife, would be the beneficiaries.

It is unquestionable that the appellant's act in

provoking the abortion of appellee's wife, without
medical necessity to warrant it, was a criminal and
morally reprehensible act, that can not be too severely
condemned; and the consent of the woman or that of
her husband does not excuse it. But the immorality or
illegality of the act does not justify an award of
damage that, under the circumstances on record,
have no factual or legal basis.

The decision appealed from is reversed, and the

complaint ordered dismissed. Without costs.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the

Department of Justice and the Board of Medical
Examiners for their information and such investigation
and action against the appellee Antonio Geluz as the
facts may warrant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes,

Dizon and Natividad, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, J., took no part.
De Leon, J., took no part.