Danilo B Policarpio Jr Persons and Family Relations Law
JD 1.5 A
[ANTONIO GELUZ v. CA] 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
[GR No. L-16439, Jul 20, 1961] extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to
anyone can take place from on that lacked juridical personality
Doctrine: In a juridical sense, by “person” is meant any being, pursuant to Article 41 provides that for civil purposes, the
physical or moral, real or juridical and legal, susceptible of foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is
rights and obligations, or of being the subject of legal relations. completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if
the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months,
it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after
Facts: Nita Villanueva became pregnant before legally married
its complete delivery from the maternal womb.
to conceal her pregnancy on the advice of her aunt; she had
herself aborted by Antonio Geluz. After marriage, she again
became pregnant; she had herself aborted again by Antonio Article 40 provided it be born later with the condition specified
Geluz. Less than two years later, she again became pregnant in the following article. In the present case, there is no dispute
and again repaired to the defendant's clinic in Manila. Nita was that the child was dead when separated from its mother's
again aborted. Oscar Lazo did not know of, nor gave his womb. Therefore, the parents are not entitled to collect any
consent, to the abortion. The third and last abortion damages because damages must be those inflicted directly
constitutes the basis for filing this action, and the award of upon them. Turning his wife's indiscretion to personal profit.
damages and, upon application of Geluz certiorari, was
granted. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover damages
from the voluntary abortion of the fetus.
Issue: Whether or not the plaintiffs entitled to recover
damages from the voluntary abortion of the fetus.
Ruling: No, because 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 derivatively
