Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Vestil vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous NDj9h7XLr
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused when a dog they possessed bit and killed the child of Purita and Agustin Vestil. While the dog and house technically belonged to Purita's deceased father, the court found that Purita and her family were the de facto possessors of the property, visiting weekly. Purita's daughter was even playing with the victim when the biting occurred. Under Article 2183, possessors of animals are strictly liable for any damages caused, regardless of fault.

    Copyright:

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

    Vestil vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous NDj9h7XLr
    30 views2 pages
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused when a dog they possessed bit and killed the child of Purita and Agustin Vestil. While the dog and house technically belonged to Purita's deceased father, the court found that Purita and her family were the de facto possessors of the property, visiting weekly. Purita's daughter was even playing with the victim when the biting occurred. Under Article 2183, possessors of animals are strictly liable for any damages caused, regardless of fault.

    Original Title

    Vestil vs. IAC.docx

    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 Vestils were found liable for damages caused when a dog they possessed bit and killed the child of Purita and Agustin Vestil. While the dog and house technically belonged to Purita's deceased father, the court found that Purita and her family were the de facto possessors of the property, visiting weekly. Purita's daughter was even playing with the victim when the biting occurred. Under Article 2183, possessors of animals are strictly liable for any damages caused, regardless of fault.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views2 pages

    Vestil vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous NDj9h7XLr
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused when a dog they possessed bit and killed the child of Purita and Agustin Vestil. While the dog and house technically belonged to Purita's deceased father, the court found that Purita and her family were the de facto possessors of the property, visiting weekly. Purita's daughter was even playing with the victim when the biting occurred. Under Article 2183, possessors of animals are strictly liable for any damages caused, regardless of fault.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PURITA VESTIL AND AGUSTIN VESTIL vs.

    IAC

    GR. NO. 74431, NOVEMBER 6, 1989

    Doctrine: According to Manresa, the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not
    based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the
    animal causing the damage. It is based on the natural equity and on the principle of social
    interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the
    damage which such animal may cause.

    Article 2183: The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible
    for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
    cease only in case the damages should come from force majeure from the fault of the person
    who has suffered damage.

    FACTS:

    Little Theness Tan Uy was bitten by a dog while she was playing with a child of the petitioners in
    the house of the late Vicente Miranda, the father of Purita Vestil at F. Ramos Street in Cebu City.
    She was rushed to the Cebu General Hospital, where she was treated for multiple lacerated
    wounds on the forehead. She was discharged after nine days but was readmitted one week
    later due to vomiting of saliva. The following day, the child died. Seven months later, the UYs
    sued for damages alleging that the Vestils were liable to them as the possesors of the dog that
    bit and eventually killed their daughter. The Vestils rejected the charge insisting that the dog
    belonged to the deceased Vicente Miranda, that it was a tame animal, and that in any case no
    one had witnessed it bite Theness. Purita Vestil insists that she is not the owner of the house or
    of the dog left by her father as his estate has not yet been partitioned and there are other heirs
    to the property.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Vestils should be liable for damages

    HELD:

    YES. While it is true that the petitioners were not the owners of the house, which was still part of
    Vicente Mirandas estate, there is no doubt that petitioners were its possessors at the time of the
    incident in question. She was the only heir residing in Cebu City and the most logical person to
    take care of the property, which was only six kilometers from her own house. Moreover, there is
    evidence showing that she and her family regularly went to the house once or twice weekly
    according to at least one witness, and used it virtually as a second house. Interestingly, her own
    daughter was playing in the house with Theness when the little girl was bitten by the dog. The
    dog itself remained in the house even after the death of Vicente Miranda when the incident
    occurred. It is also noteworthy that the petitioners offered to assist the Uys with their
    hospitalization expenses although Purita said she only knew them only casually. : According to
    Manresa, the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the
    negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing
    the damage. It is based on the natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who
    possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such
    animal may cause.

    Therefore, the petitioners are liable for damages.

    You might also like