G.R.

No: L-16439
Geluz vs. Court of Appeals
Supreme Court
Reyes, J.B.L., J:
Procedural History: The litigation was commenced in the Court of First Instance of
Manila where Oscar Lazo, filed against Antonio Geluz. The trial court rendered a
judgment in favor of Lazo ordering Geluz to pay Php 3,000 in damages and Php 700
as attorneys fees and cost of the suit. Geluz took the suit to the Court of Appeals
who sustained the ruling with three judges against two, with the latter giving
dissenting opinions. Petitioner Geluz then took this case to the Supreme Court.
Facts: Nita Villanueva, the wife of Oscar Lazo, became pregnant in 1950- before
they were legally married. To conceal this fact, she had an abortion performed by
petitioner Geluz on the advice of her aunt Paula Yambot. Around October 1953,
when she was already married to Lazo, she had another abortion performed by
petitioner due to its inconvenience as she was working with COMELEC. She became
pregnant again in 1955. On February 21 of that year, Geluz performed another
abortion on her for the consideration of Php 50. Oscar Lazo was then at Cagayan,
campaigning for his election, unaware that the abortion was performed. It is this
abortion that constitutes Lazos complaint.
Issues: [1] Whether or not recovery can be had for the death of an unborn child
[2] Whether or not the husband of a woman who voluntarily procured an
abortion could file
for damages against the physician who performed the
abortion
Holding: [1] NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the unborn fetus is not endowed with
juridical personality. For a conceived child to have juridical personality, one must be
born alive. It can be established that the fetus was dead when taken from the womb
of the mother.
[2] NO. Parents can file for moral damages for the arrested development
of their fetus and the corresponding distress this causes. In this case, Lazo cannot
file for moral damages because of his lack of distress at the two preceding abortions
also performed by the appellant. Even after learning about the third abortion, Lazo
was not primarily concerned with the civil and criminal cases against Geluz- instead,
he was more focused about indemnity. He sued for Php 50,000 in damages and Php
3,000 in attorneys fees.
Judgment: The decision appealed from is reversed and the complaint ordered
dismissed. Without costs.
Dicta: None

G.R. No: L-16439

Geluz vs. Court of Appeals
Supreme Court
Reyes, J.B.L., J:
Procedural History: The litigation was commenced in the Court of First Instance of
Manila where Oscar Lazo, filed against Antonio Geluz. The trial court rendered a
judgment in favor of Lazo ordering Geluz to pay Php 3,000 in damages and Php 700
as attorneys fees and cost of the suit. Geluz took the suit to the Court of Appeals
who sustained the ruling with three judges against two, with the latter giving
dissenting opinions. Petitioner Geluz then took this case to the Supreme Court.
Facts: Nita Villanueva, the wife of Oscar Lazo, became pregnant in 1950- before
they were legally married. To conceal this fact, she had an abortion performed by
petitioner Geluz on the advice of her aunt Paula Yambot. Around October 1953,
when she was already married to Lazo, she had another abortion performed by
petitioner due to its inconvenience as she was working with COMELEC. She became
pregnant again in 1955. On February 21 of that year, Geluz performed another
abortion on her for the consideration of Php 50. Oscar Lazo was then at Cagayan,
campaigning for his election, unaware that the abortion was performed. It is this
abortion that constitutes Lazos complaint.
Issues: [1] Whether or not recovery can be had for the death of an unborn child
[2] Whether or not the husband of a woman who voluntarily procured an
abortion could file
for damages against the physician who performed the
abortion
Holding: [1] NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the unborn fetus is not endowed with
juridical personality. For a conceived child to have juridical personality, one must be
born alive. It can be established that the fetus was dead when taken from the womb
of the mother.
[2] NO. Parents can file for moral damages for the arrested development
of their fetus and the corresponding distress this causes. In this case, Lazo cannot
file for moral damages because of his lack of distress at the two preceding abortions
also performed by the appellant. Even after learning about the third abortion, Lazo
was not primarily concerned with the civil and criminal cases against Geluz- instead,
he was more focused about indemnity. He sued for Php 50,000 in damages and Php
3,000 in attorneys fees.
Judgment: The decision appealed from is reversed and the complaint ordered
dismissed. Without costs.
Dicta: None

G.R. No: L-10134

Sabina Exconde vs Delfin Capuno and Dante Capuno
Bautisto, Angelo, J:
Procedural History: Dante Capuno, son of Delfin Capuno, was charged with double
homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Isidro Caperina and Amado
Ticzon at the Court of First Instance of Laguna. Sabina Exconde, mother of the
deceased Caperina, reserved her rights to bring a separate civil action for damages
against Dante Capuno. After the trial on the criminal case, Dante was found guilty of
the crime. Exconde filed the present action against Delfin Capuno and his son
asking for damages in the amount of Php 2,959. Defendants responded by stating
that only Dante is liable for damages as he was not under the control of Delfin at
the time. This defense was sustained by the lower court upon which the plaintiff
brought the case to the Court of Appeals. It was brought to the Supreme Court on
the grounds that this case only involves questions of law.
Facts:
Issues: [1] Whether or not recovery can be had for the death of an unborn child
[2] Whether or not the husband of a woman who voluntarily procured an
abortion could file
for damages against the physician who performed the
abortion
Holding: [1] NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the unborn fetus is not endowed with
juridical personality. For a conceived child to have juridical personality, one must be
born alive. It can be established that the fetus was dead when taken from the womb
of the mother.
[2] NO. Parents can file for moral damages for the arrested development
of their fetus and the corresponding distress this causes. In this case, Lazo cannot
file for moral damages because of his lack of distress at the two preceding abortions
also performed by the appellant. Even after learning about the third abortion, Lazo
was not primarily concerned with the civil and criminal cases against Geluz- instead,
he was more focused about indemnity. He sued for Php 50,000 in damages and Php
3,000 in attorneys fees.
Judgment: The decision appealed from is reversed and the complaint ordered
dismissed. Without costs.
Dicta: None