Case Digest (G.R. No. 74431)
Facts:
Purita Miranda Vestil and Agustin Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court, David Uy and Teresita Uy, G.R. No. 74431, November 06, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.
The respondents David Uy and Teresita Uy (the Uys) sued petitioners Purita Miranda Vestil and Agustin Vestil seven months after their three‑year‑old daughter, Theness Tan Uy, was bitten by a dog on July 29, 1975, at the house of the late Vicente Miranda in Cebu City. Theness was treated at Cebu General Hospital for multiple lacerations and received anti‑rabies vaccine; she was discharged but readmitted with vomiting of saliva and later developed hydrophobia and died on August 15, 1975. The death certificate listed broncho‑pneumonia as the cause of death.
The Uys alleged that the dog, called “Andoy,” belonged to the Vestils and that the Vestils, as possessors of the animal, were civilly liable. The Vestils denied ownership or possession of the dog and contended the dog belonged to the deceased Vicente Miranda; they also disputed causal connection between the bite and the child’s death. At trial, the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Judge Jose R. Ramolete) sustained the defendants and dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the trial court, holding that the Vestils were possessors of the house and the dog and thus liable under Article 2183, Civil Code; the court awarded P30,000 for death, P12,000 for medical and hospitalization expenses, and P2,000 attorney’s fees. The Vestils brought the case to the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals decision and reinstate the trial court’s dismissal.
Before the Supreme Court, the parties adduced testimony (notably Dr. Antonio Tautjo) and documentary evidence (including the death certificate and a water‑connection app...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were the petitioners the possessors of the dog and therefore liable under Article 2183 of the Civil Code?
- Was the causal connection between the dog bite(s) and Theness’s death sufficiently established?
- Were the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals proper in a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)