PERSONS (Civil Personality)

ANTONIO GELUZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Her present husband impregnated Nita Villanueva before they were legally married. Desiring to conceal her pregnancy from the parent, she had herself aborted by petitioner Antonio Geluz. After her marriage, she again became pregnant. As she was then employed in the COMELEC and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by Geluz. Less than 2 years later, Nita incurred a third abortion of a two-month old fetus, in consideration of the sum of P50.00. Her husband did not know of, nor consented to the abortion. Hence Oscar Lazo, private respondent, sued petitioner for damages based on the third and last abortion. The trial court rendered judgment ordering Antonio Geluz to pay P3,000.00 as damages, P700.00 as attorneys fee and the cost of the suit. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. ISSUE: Is an unborn child covered with personality so that if the unborn child incurs injury, his parents may recover damages from the ones who caused the damage to the unborn child? HELD: Personality begins at conception. This personality is called presumptive personality. It is, of course, essential that birth should occur later, otherwise the fetus will be considered as never having possessed legal personality. Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of injury or death pertains primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of injuries it received, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from one that lacked juridical personality. It is no answer to invoke the presumptive personality of a conceived child under Article 40 of the Civil Code because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive. In the present case, the child was dead when separated from its mothers womb. This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to damages. However, such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from injury or violation of the rights of the deceased child. Quimiguing vs Icao FACTS: Carmen Quimiguing, the petitioner, and Felix Icao, the defendant, were neighbors in Dapitan City and had close and confidential relations. Despite the fact that Icao was married, he succeeded to have carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times under force and intimidation and without her consent. As a result, Carmen became pregnant despite drugs supplied by defendant and as a consequence, Carmen stopped studying. Plaintiff claimed for support at P120 per month, damages and attorneys fees. The complaint was dismissed by the lower court in Zamboanga del Norte on the ground lack of cause of action. Plaintiff

moved to amend the complaint that as a result of the intercourse, she gave birth to a baby girl but the court ruled that no amendment was allowable since the original complaint averred no cause of action. ISSUE: Whether plaintiff has a right to claim damages. HELD: Supreme Court held that a conceive child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The conceive child may also receive donations and be accepted by those persons who will legally represent them if they were already born as prescribed in Article 742. Lower courts theory on article 291 of the civil code declaring that support is an obligation of parents and illegitimate children does not contemplate support to children as yet unborn violates article 40 aforementioned. Another reason for reversal of the order is that Icao being a married man forced a woman not his wife to yield to his lust and this constitutes a clear violation of Carmens rights. Thus, she is entitled to claim compensation for the damage caused. WHEREFORE, the orders under appeal are reversed and set aside. Let the case be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings conformable to this decision. Costs against appellee Felix Icao. So ordered. People vs. Felipe FACTS: That at about 8:00 in the evening of July 9, 1971, Ruth Pancho was raped by Fernando Felipe, her uncle by affinity, in a room in their house in Sta. Barbara, Baliwag, Bulacan. Afraid of the threat made upon her by the appellant, Ruth did not report the incident to anyone until December 5, 1971, when her sister-in-law, Angelita Sta. Maria-Pancho, noticed the enlargement of her abdomen. Mrs. Pancho informed complainant's mother about her condition and the following day the matter was reported to the police. Ruth was examined by Dr. Artemio Marcelo and was found six months pregnant. Ruth was twenty-five (25) years old at the time of the trial and her educational attainment is only first year high school because she had to stop schooling due to low intelligence. No direct evidence whatsoever was presented to belie the testimony of the complainant. The trial court, analyzing the evidence of the prosecution and the memorandum of the defense; arrived at the conclusion that the crime of rape was committed by the appellant Fernando Felipe upon the complainant Ruth Pancho on the night of July 9, 1971. ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in holding that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt HELD: The essential elements of the crime of rape have been proven satisfactorily by the prosecution. Not only is the testimony of the victim corroborated and unrebutted by a disinterested and expert witness, Dr.

Artemio Marcelo, but also this Court has time and again observed that it is hard to believe that an unmarried woman like the victim would publicly disclose that she was raped by a relative by affinity and subject her private parts to examination unless she is motivated by strong desire to bring to justice the culprit who had previously wronged her. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against defendantappellant. Joaquin vs. Navarro FACTS: This was a summary proceeding to resolve the order of the deaths of Joaquin Navarro Jr and his Angela. While the battle for the liberation of Manila was raging, the whole family sought refuge at the German Club. While staying there, it was set on fire and the Japs were shooting at the fleeing refugees. 3 daughters were shot dead, Angela refused to leave the place while JN Jr, wife, FL & JN Sr fled. JN jr was shot while coming out. Moments later, the German Club collapsed. CA said that the mother died before the son on the basis that she could have died immediately after for a variety of causes. ISSUE: Whether the mother died before JN Jr. HELD: In light of the conditions painted by FL, a fair inference can be arrived at that JN Jr died before his mother. The presumption that AJ died before her son was based on speculations, not evidence. Gauged by the doctrine of preponderance of evidence by which civil cases are decided, this inference should prevail. Evidence of survivorship may be (1) direct (2) indirect (3) circumstantial or (4) inferential. Art. 43 Speaks about resolving doubt when 2 or more persons are called to succeed each other as to which of them died first. In the Civil Code, in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time, and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to another. In the Rules of Court, in cases of calamity, there is a hierarchy of survivorship.