Lex Rex Ph

Geluz vs. CA and Lazo

G.R. No. L-16439 


Nita Villanueva voluntarily procured abortion three times with Geluz as the physician. She did it without the consent of her husband. Upon knowing the last abortion, Oscar Lazo filed for damages against Dr. Geluz. Trial court awarded damages to the husband. CA affirmed.

Issue and Ruling:

Can the husband recover damages against the physician who caused the abortion?

No. The husband’s usage of Article 2206 of the New Civil Code is misplaced. It does not cover an unborn fetus. The father cannot act on behalf of the dead child. The conceived child only has a provisional personality but no juridical personality. Therefore, a father cannot claim damages in behalf of the aborted child.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Boyer vs. Roxas Digest

July 14, 1992 Facts Petitioner Heirs of Eugenia Roxas Inc. prayed for the ejectment of Rebecca Boyer-Roxas and Guillermo Roxas from buildings inside the Hidden

Read More »

Ago vs. CA Digest

“When Machines Become Real Property” GR 17898; Oct. 31, 1962 PARTIES:Pastor D. Ago, petitioner vs. Hon. CA, Hon. Ortiza Judge of CFI Agusan, Provincial Sheriff

Read More »

Life vs Property

The right to life is more sacred than a mere owning a property. That is not to encourage x x x theft, but merely to

Read More »