Geluz vs.

CA
G.R. No. L-16439
July 20, 1961

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 pregnant 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 Geluz. She had her
pregnancy aborted again on October 1953 since she found it inconvenient as she was
employed at COMELEC. After two years, on February 21, 1955, she again became
pregnant and was accompanied by her sister Purificacion and the latter’s daughter
Lucida at Geluz’ clinic at Carriedo and P. Gomez Street. Oscar at this time was in the
province of Cagayan campaigning for his election to the provincial board. He doesn’t
have any idea nor given his consent on the abortion.

ISSUE:
Whether the husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could recover
damages from the physician who caused the same.

RULING:
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 personality
which trial court and Court of Appeals predicated.
Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains
primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could be
instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no such
right of action could deliberately 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 of
juridical personality under Article 40 of the Civil Code, which expressly limits such
provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently
alive.
Both trial court and CA wasn’t able to find any basis for an award of moral damages
evidently because Oscar’s 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 his wife’s indiscretion to
personal profit and filed a civil action for damages of which not only he but, including his
wife would be the beneficiaries. It shows that he’s after obtaining a large money
payment since he sued Geluz for P50,000 damages and P3,000 attorney’s fees that
serves as indemnity claim, which under the circumstances was clearly exaggerated.