6/29/2015

G.R.No.26795

TodayisMonday,June29,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.26795July31,1970
CARMENQUIMIGUING,Suingthroughherparents,ANTONIOQUIMIGUINGandJACOBACABILIN,
plaintiffsappellants,
vs.
FELIXICAO,defendantappellee.
TorcuatoL.Galonforplaintiffsappellants.
GodardoJacintofordefendantappellee.

REYES,J.B.L.,J.:
AppealonpointsoflawfromanorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofZamboangadelNorte(JudgeOnofreSison
Abalos,presiding),initsCivilCaseNo.1590,dismissingacomplaintforsupportanddamages,andanotherorder
denyingamendmentofthesamepleading.
Theeventsinthecourtoforigincanbesummarizedasfollows:
Appellant,CarmenQuimiguing,assistedbyherparents,suedFelixIcaointhecourtbelow.Inhercomplaintitwas
averredthatthepartieswereneighborsinDapitanCity,andhadcloseandconfidentialrelationsthatdefendant
Icao, although married, succeeded in having carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times by force and
intimidation,andwithoutherconsentthatasaresultshebecamepregnant,despiteeffortsanddrugssuppliedby
defendant, and plaintiff had to stop studying. Hence, she claimed support at P120.00 per month, damages and
attorney'sfees.
Dulysummoned,defendantIcaomovedtodismissforlackofcauseofactionsincethecomplaintdidnotallege
that the child had been born and after hearing arguments, the trial judge sustained defendant's motion and
dismissedthecomplaint.
Thereafter,plaintiffmovedtoamendthecomplainttoallegethatasaresultoftheintercourse,plaintiffhadlater
givenbirthtoababygirlbutthecourt,sustainingdefendant'sobjection,ruledthatnoamendmentwasallowable,
sincetheoriginalcomplaintaverrednocauseofaction.Wherefore,theplaintiffappealeddirectlytothisCourt.
We find the appealed orders of the court below to be untenable. A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is
givenbylawaprovisionalpersonalityofitsownforallpurposesfavorabletoit,asexplicitlyprovidedinArticle40
of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The unborn child, therefore, has a right to support from its progenitors,
particularly of the defendantappellee (whose paternity is deemed admitted for the purpose of the motion to
dismiss),evenifthesaidchildisonly"enventredesamere" just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn,
mayreceivedonationsasprescribedbyArticle742ofthesameCode,anditsbeingignoredbytheparentinhis
testamentmayresultinpreteritionofaforcedheirthatannulstheinstitutionofthetestamentaryheir,evenifsuch
childshouldbebornafterthedeathofthetestatorArticle854,CivilCode).
ART. 742. Donations made to conceived and unborn children may be accepted by those persons
whowouldlegallyrepresentthemiftheywerealreadyborn.
ART.854.Thepreteritionoromissionofone,some,orallofthecompulsoryheirsinthedirectline,
whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall
annul the institution of heir but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not
inofficious.
If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/jul1970/gr_26795_1970.html

1/2

6/29/2015

G.R.No.26795

withoutprejudicetotherightof'representation.
Itisthusclearthatthelowercourt'stheorythatArticle291oftheCivilCodedeclaringthatsupportisanobligation
ofparentsandillegitimatechildren"doesnotcontemplatesupporttochildrenasyetunborn,"violatesArticle40
aforesaid,besidesimposingaconditionthatnowhereappearsinthetextofArticle291.ItistruethatArticle40
prescribingthat"theconceivedchildshallbeconsideredbornforallpurposesthatarefavorabletoit"addsfurther
"provideditbebornlaterwiththeconditionsspecifiedinthefollowingarticle"(i.e.,thatthefoetusbealiveatthe
timeitiscompletelydeliveredfromthemother'swomb).Thisproviso,however,isnotaconditionprecedenttothe
rightoftheconceivedchildforifitwere,thefirstpartofArticle40wouldbecomeentirelyuselessandineffective.
Manresa,inhisCommentaries(5thEd.)tothecorrespondingArticle29oftheSpanishCivilCode,clearlypoints
thisout:
Losderechosatribuidosalnasciturusnosonsimplesexpectativas,niaunenelsentidotecnicoque
la moderna doctrina da a esta figura juridica sino que constituyen un caso de los propiamente
Ilamados'derechosenestadodependenci'elnacimientodelsujetoenlascondicionesprevistaspor
elart.30,nodeterminaelnacimientodeaquellosderechos(queyaexistiandeantemano),sinoque
setratadeunhechoquetieneefectosdeclarativos.(1Manresa,Op.cit.,page271)
Asecondreasonforreversingtheordersappealedfromisthatforamarriedmantoforceawomannothiswife
toyieldtohislust(asaverredintheoriginalcomplaintinthiscase)constitutesaclearviolationoftherightsofhis
victim that entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Says Article 21 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines:
ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicyshallcompensatethelatterforthedamage.
TheruleofArticle21issupportedbyArticle2219ofthesameCode:
ART2219.Moraldamagesmayberecoveredinthefollowingandanalogouscases:
(3)Seduction,abduction,rapeorotherlasciviousacts:
xxxxxxxxx
(10)ActsandactionsreferredtoinArticles21,26,27,28....
Thus,independentlyoftherighttoSupportofthechildshewascarrying,plaintiffherselfhadacauseofactionfor
damagesunderthetermsofthecomplaintandtheorderdismissingitforfailuretostateacauseofactionwas
doublyinerror.
WHEREFORE, the orders under appeal are reversed and set aside. Let the case be remanded to the court of
originforfurtherproceedingsconformabletothisdecision.CostsagainstappelleeFelixIcao.Soordered.
Concepcion,C.J.,Dizon,Makalintal,Zaldivar,Castro,Fernando,Teehankee,BarredoandVillamor,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1970/jul1970/gr_26795_1970.html

2/2