Geluz vs CA

TITLE: Geluz vs CA
CITATION: 2 SCRA 801
FACTS:
Nita Villanueva, the wife of Oscar lazo, respondent, came to know Antonio Geluz,
the petitioner and physician, through her aunt Paula Yambot. Nita became pregn
ant some time in 1950 before she and Oscar were legally married. As advised by
her aunt and to conceal it from her parents, she decided to have it aborted by G
eluz. She had her pregnancy aborted again on October 1953 since she found it in
convenient as she was employed at COMELEC. After two years, on February 21, 195
5, she again became pregnant and was accompanied by her sister Purificacion and
the latters daughter Lucida at Geluz clinic at Carriedo and P. Gomez Street. Osca
r at this time was in the province of Cagayan campaigning for his election to th
e provincial board. He doesnt have any idea nor given his consent on the abortio
n.
ISSUE: Whether husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could
recover damages from the physician who caused the same.
HELD:
The Supreme Court believed that the minimum award fixed at P3,000 for the death
of a person does not cover cases of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with per
sonality which trial court and Court of Appeals predicated.
Both trial court and CA wasnt able to find any basis for an award of moral damage
s evidently because Oscars indifference to the previous abortions of Nita clearly
indicates he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental affections.
Instead of filing an administrative or criminal case against Geluz, he turned hi
s wifes indiscretion to personal profit and filed a civil action for damages of w
hich not only he but, including his wife would be the beneficiaries. It shows t
hat hes after obtaining a large money payment since he sued Geluz for P50,000 dam
ages and P3,000 attorneys fees that serves as indemnity claim, which under the ci
rcumstances was clearly exaggerated.
-----------------------------
GELUZ v CA (1961)
2 SCRA 801
FACTS
:- Nita Villanueva had three abortions with Dr. Antonio Geluz which Oscar Lazo,
the husband, isnot aware of - Husband filed for damages of P3000 by virtue of Ar
t 2206 which CA sustained
ISSUE
: WON husband can claim damages for the death of the unborn fetus?
HELD
: No. The fetus was not yet born and thus does not have civil personality. Accor
ding toArticle 40, birth determines personality. In this case, the fetus does no
t yet possess a personalityto speak of because it was aborted in uterus. The chi
ld should be born before the parents canseek any recovery for damages. Action fo
r pecuniary damages on account of personal injury ordeath pertains primarily to
the one injured. There could be no action for such damages that canbe instituted
on behalf of the unborn child for the injuries it received because it lacked ju
ridicalpersonality. The damages which the parents of an unborn child can recover
are limited to moraldamages, in this case, for the act of the appellant Geluz t
o perform the abortion. However, moraldamages cannot also be recovered because t
he wife willingly sought the abortion, and thehusband did not further investigat
e on the causes of the abortion. Furthermore, the husband didnot seem to have ta
ken interest in the administrative and criminal cases against the appellant,but
was more concerned in obtaining from the doctor a large money payment.
NOTE BENE:
In the Philippines, people who seek pecuniary damages for loss of relatives are
seenin a negative light. It gives the impression that youre just after the money. B
ut it should not bethe case.
-----------------------------
Geluz v. CA
GELUZ v. CA, 2 SCRA 801
FACTS: Nita Villanueva had three abortions with Dr. Antonio Geluz which Oscar La
zo, the husband, is not aware of. Husband filed for damages of P3000 by virtue o
f Art. 2206 which CA sustained.
ISSUE: WON husband can claim damages for the death of the unborn fetus?
HELD: No. The fetus was not yet born and thus does not have civil personality. A
ccording to Article 40, birth determines personality. In this case, the fetus do
es not yet possess a personality to speak of because it was aborted in uterus. T
he child should be born before the parents can seek any recovery for damages. Ac
tion for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains prima
rily to the one injured. There could be no action for such damages that can be i
nstituted 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 c
an recover are limited to moral damages, in this case, for the act of the appell
ant Geluz to perform the abortion. However, moral damages cannot also be recover
ed because the wife willingly sought the abortion, and the husband did not furth
er investigate on the causes of the abortion. Furthermore, the husband did not s
eem 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 pay
ment.