Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Case Facts Issues Ruling: Conceptus Pro Nato Habetur

    Uploaded by

    Rommel Mancenido Lagumen
    The issues are whether a husband can recover damages from a physician who performed an abortion on the husband's wife without consent. The Court ruled no damages can be recovered. An unborn fetus is not a person under civil law and lacks legal personality and rights. Since the fetus cannot have rights, the husband cannot recover damages derivatively. Even if the fetus had a right of action, it was extinguished upon pre-natal death since no transmission of rights occurs from one lacking legal personality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Facts Issues Ruling: Conceptus Pro Nato Habetur

    Uploaded by

    Rommel Mancenido Lagumen
    36 views1 page
    The issues are whether a husband can recover damages from a physician who performed an abortion on the husband's wife without consent. The Court ruled no damages can be recovered. An unborn fetus is not a person under civil law and lacks legal personality and rights. Since the fetus cannot have rights, the husband cannot recover damages derivatively. Even if the fetus had a right of action, it was extinguished upon pre-natal death since no transmission of rights occurs from one lacking legal personality.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    geluz vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The issues are whether a husband can recover damages from a physician who performed an abortion on the husband's wife without consent. The Court ruled no damages can be recovered. An unborn fetus is not a person under civil law and lacks legal personality and rights. Since the fetus cannot have rights, the husband cannot recover damages derivatively. Even if the fetus had a right of action, it was extinguished upon pre-natal death since no transmission of rights occurs from one lacking legal personality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    Case Facts Issues Ruling: Conceptus Pro Nato Habetur

    Uploaded by

    Rommel Mancenido Lagumen
    The issues are whether a husband can recover damages from a physician who performed an abortion on the husband's wife without consent. The Court ruled no damages can be recovered. An unborn fetus is not a person under civil law and lacks legal personality and rights. Since the fetus cannot have rights, the husband cannot recover damages derivatively. Even if the fetus had a right of action, it was extinguished upon pre-natal death since no transmission of rights occurs from one lacking legal personality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

    Topic: 3.
    Civil
    Personality
    This petition for certiorari brings up for review
    Concept and question whether the husband of a woman,
    Classes of who voluntarily procured her abortion, could
    Persons recover damages from physician who caused
    the same. No, because the child has no personal or civil liability yet being an unborn child.

    THE FACTS: The Court said that the Court of Appeals and the trial court predicated the award of damages in the sum of P3,000.06 upon the provisions of the
    initial paragraph of Article 2206 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This we believe to be error, for the said article, in fixing a minimum award of
    P3,000.00 for the death of a person, does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed with personality. Under the system of our Civil
    Nita Villanueva came to know Geluz when
    Whether or not Code, "la criatura abortiva no alcanza la categoria de persona natural y en consscuencia es un ser no nacido a la vida del Derecho" (Casso-
    Geluz she was pregnant by her husband before
    the spouses Cervera, "Diccionario de Derecho Privado", Vol. 1, p. 49), being incapable of having rights and obligations.
    their marriage. Geluz performed an abortion
    on Nita Villanueva. After the latter’s Lazo could
    vs marriage, she again became pregnant and recover 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
    since she was employed in the Commission damages from 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
    on Elections, the pregnancy was the physician 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
    CA inconvenient and she had herself aborted who caused death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from on that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity as distinguished from capacity to
    again by Geluz. In less than two years, she the same. act). It is no answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the Civil
    again became pregnant and had her two- Code, because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be
    month old fetus aborted by Geluz for a sum subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with the condition specified in the following article". In the present case, there is no
    of fifty pesos. Nita’s husband was then dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.
    campaigning for his election and was aware
    and did not give consent to the abortion. He
    G.R. No. L- filed for an action for the award of damages.
    16439           The trial court and Court of Appeals
    predicated the award of damages in the sum
    July 20, of three thousand pesos for moral damages.
    1961

    You might also like