Case Summary (G.R. No. 4089)
Key Dates and Procedural History
– October 13, 1900: Pelayo was summoned to the defendants’ home in San Nicolás to assist in a difficult childbirth.
– November 23, 1900: Complaint filed seeking ₱500 for services and costs.
– January 23, 1907: Demurrer sustained; defendants’ amended answer denied all allegations.
– April 5, 1907: Trial court ruled for defendants for lack of proof, taxed costs to plaintiff.
– January 12, 1909: Supreme Court decision affirming lower court.
Factual Background
Pelayo, after consulting with Dr. Escano, performed a forceps delivery and removed the after-birth, remaining at the patient’s side until the following morning and making subsequent visits the same day. The daughter-in-law died post‐confinement. Defendants called Pelayo but later refused payment, alleging no obligation to pay.
Applicable Law
Under the Spanish Civil Code then in force:
• Article 1088: Obligations consist in giving, doing, or not doing something.
• Article 1089: Obligations arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or torts.
• Articles 142–143: Spouses owe each other mutual support, including medical assistance in illness.
Issue Presented
Whether the husband or the patient’s in-laws are legally obliged to pay the physician’s fees for emergency obstetric services rendered to the wife/daughter-in-law.
Court’s Analysis
- Obligations between spouses include furnishing necessary medical care; the law imposes support duties in emergencies to preserve life.
- The husband, not third parties, is bound to pay for his wife’s medical assistance, regardless of who summoned the physician.
- Parents-in-law are “strangers” to this marital support obligation and, in absence of any contract imposing liability, cannot be compelled to pay professional fees.
- Spanish jurisp
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 4089)
Facts
- On October 13, 1900, at night, the plaintiff, Dr. Arturo Pelayo, was summoned to the house of Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella in San Nicolas to attend their daughter-in-law in childbirth.
- After consulting with the attending physician, Dr. Escano, it was determined that forceps delivery was necessary due to the difficult birth.
- Dr. Pelayo applied forceps, removed the after-birth, and remained in attendance until the following morning, making several follow-up visits the same day.
- The plaintiff valued his professional services at P500, which the defendants refused to pay without offering any justification.
Defendants’ Answer and Special Defense
- The defendants denied every allegation in the complaint.
- As a special defense, they asserted that the patient (their daughter-in-law) died from childbirth, that she lived separately with her husband, and that her presence in their home on the night of delivery was accidental and due to fortuitous circumstances.
- They prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs against the plaintiff.
Procedural History
- The plaintiff demurred to the defendants’ answer; the trial court sustained the demurrer and ordered the defendants to amend their answer on January 23, 1907.
- The defendants filed an amended answer the same day, again denying all allegations and requesting dismissal.
- After trial, the court on April 5, 1907, absolved the d