BRITANICO, CAMILLE ASTRID O.

2015-89140 | 1-D
CASE BRIEF
Style of the case: Geluz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 16439, 20 July 1961, 2 SCRA 801 (1961)
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Reyes J.B.L.
Facts and Procedural History: The defendant-appellant, physician Antonio Geluz, was introduced to
Nita Villanueva, wife of plaintiff-appellee, Oscar Lazo, for the very first time in 1948 through the
latters aunt, Paula Yambot. They met again in three separate occasions after that, all of which
involved the abortion of Nitas unborn children. The first instance was in 1950; Nita Villanueva got
pregnant out of wedlock by her now husband, afraid to face her parents wrath, she followed her
aunts advice and got an abortion. During the month of October in the year 1953, Lazos wife, then an
employee of COMELEC, got pregnant yet again; however she deemed it troublesome, hence, she had
an abortion again by the defendant. And in February 21, 1955, less than two years after her last
abortion, Nita, together with her sister and niece, went to the defendants clinic, and again had an
abortion, which cost 50 pesos. Nitas husband, Oscar Lazo, was out of town when the third abortion
occurred as he was in the middle of his campaign for a position in the provincial board. He was not
informed, nor was he acquiescent with what his wife did. The foregoing third abortion served as
Lazos basis in filing a suit against Geluz.
The case at bar was first heard in the Court of First Instance (CFI). The trial court ruled in favor of
Lazo and enjoined Geluz to pay Lazo Php 3,000.00 for damages and Php 700.00 for attorneys fees
and cost of suit. Unsatisfied with the ruling, Geluz appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). However,
the CA sustained the ruling of the CFI.
Hence, the defendants petition for certiorari to this Court.
Issue: Whether or not, the husband of a woman, who, in her own volition, aborted her unborn
children, could ask for indemnity from the physician who performed the said abortion.
Judgment: CAs ruling is reversed.
Holding: No. The Court opined that the CA and CFI erred in its decision regarding the case at bar,
particularly the payment of the defendant, Geluz of the amount of Php 3,000.00 to Oscar Lazo. For
the court maintained that the Art. 2026 of Civil Code provided no stipulation regarding circumstances
involving the abortion off an unborn child. Also, the court argued that in Article 40 of the same code
states that a provisional personality may bestowed upon a child born alive, one can see that this does
not apply to the present case. Moreover, the court cited the American jurisprudence as they sustained
that the same holds that in circumstances involving the demise of a fetus, indemnity cannot be had.
Discussion (and Dicta): The Court ruled against the plaintiff, one Oscar Lazo because as echoed by
the Court of Appeals, it would seem that the said plaintiff is more interested in converting the death of
his unborn child to paper bills rather than in making sure that the physician responsible for such a
deplorable act be held accountable through the filing of administrative and criminal cases.

BRITANICO, CAMILLE ASTRID O.

2015-89140 | 1-D
CASE BRIEF
Style of the case: Exconde vs. Capuno, G.R. No. L-10134, 29 June 1957, 101 Phil. 843
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Angelo Bautista
Facts and Procedural History: On March 31, 1949, instructed by the school supervisor, Dante
Capuno attended a parade commemorating the countrys national hero, Jose Rizal in the city of San
Pablo. Going there, Dante, accompanied by other students, got on a jeepney and when the said vehicle
started to move, Dante grabbed the wheel and drove said jeep, while the driver remained seated on his
left side. They have not gone that far when the jeep turned over, killing two of its passengers, Amado
Ticzon and Isidore Caperia. It is important to note that Delfin Capuno, father of Dante, was not with
present at the time of the incident, nor was he aware that his son went to the said parade. He was only
informed about it, when his son came to him after the accident and told him that he attended the
parade as he was instructed by hi teacher to do so. Because of the foregoing incident, Dante Capuno
was charged of double homicide through reckless imprudence for the deaths of Ticzon and Caperia
in the Court of First Instance (CFI). During the trial, Sabina Exconde, mother of one of the deceased,
reserved her right to file a civil suit not only against Dante, but also against his father, Delfin. The suit
asked that both father and son be enjoined to pay her the amount of Php 2,959.00. However, only
Dante was convicted. His father, Delfin was exonerated on account that he was unaware and was not
present when the accident took place. Unsatisfied by the said ruling, plaintiff appeals to the Court of
Appeals (CA). The CA however sustained the ruling of the CFI. Hence, for this petition in this Court.
Issue: Whether or not, defendant Delfin Capuno can be held civilly responsible, jointly and severally
with Dante, his child, for indemnity resulting from the demise of one Isidoro Caperia
instigated by the careless act of minor Dante Capuno.
Judgment: CAs ruling is reversed; father and so are enjoined to pay the plaintiff.
Holding: Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code, paragraph 1 and 5, can be applied to the case at bar;
it stipulates that:
ART. 1903. The obligation impossed by the next preceding articles is enforceable not only for
personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible.
The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages
caused by the minor children who live with them.
The application of this law to the present case is apparent. When Dante Capuno committed the
offense, he was not then a student of an institute of arts and trades as provided by law, he remained
however, the son and ward of his father, Delfin Capuno. Thus, civil liability extends to him.
Discussion (and Dicta):