ANTONIO GELUZ V.

CA

NCC 40 Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be RATIO:
considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be
born later with the conditions specified in the following article. (1) Death of a person, as provided for in Article 2206, does not cover the case of an
unborn foetus that is not endowed with the personality, as it is incapable of having
PONENTE: Reyes, J. rights and obligations.
DOCTRINE: The right to action of the child was extinguished by its pre- An action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains to
natal death. Art.40 of the Civil Code expressly limits the provisional the one injured. If no action for damages could be instituted on behalf of the
personality by imposing the condition that the child should be unborn child for the injuries it received, the parents had no right of action as well.
subsequently born alive. In this case, the child was dead when separated
form the mothers womb. (2) Parents may collect moral damages, but it must be those inflicted directly on
them, and not on the violation of the rights of the accused.
RULING FORMAT: RTC- AFFIRMED (In favor of plaintiff Lazo). - Moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the foetus;
CA-SUSTAINED (Majority vote of 3 is to 2). SC-REVERSED on account of the distress and anguish due to its loss, and disappointment of
DECISION (Granted petition. Dismissed complaint). their parental expectation.
FACTS: But in this case, no basis for the award of moral damages considering appellee
1.) In 1950, Nita Villanueva became pregnant by her present Lazos indifference to the previous abortions clearly indicates that he was
husband, Oscar Lazo, before they were legally married. unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and afflictions.
2.) To conceal her pregnancy from her parents, she had herself
aborted by Antonio Geluz, a physician. Furthermore, despite the repetitions of the abortions, Lazo did not seem interested
3.) After her marriage with Oscar Lazo, she again became pregnant. in the criminal and administrative charges against Geluz. Lazos only concern is to
4.) As she was working in the COMELEC, and her pregnancy obtain an exaggerated sum of money.
proved to be inconvenient, she again had an abortion by Geluz, in
1953. *Although the acts of appellant Geluz were reprehensible, but illegality of the act
5.) Less than 2 years later (in 1955), Nita was again pregnant. does not justify an award of moral damages, that have no factual basis.
Accompanied by her sister and niece, she sought yet another
abortion by Geluz. The foetus was 2 months old.
6.) During Nitas 3rd abortion, her husband Oscar was in Cagayan
campaigning for his election to the provincial b board. He did not
know nor gave his consent to the abortion.
7.) Oscar Lazo, thus, filed for action and an award for damages
against Dr. Antonio Geluz in the RTC of Manila.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in awarding the moral damages to Oscar
Lazo upon the provisions of Art. 2206 of the Civil Code.

HELD: Yes.