Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Vestil, Et Al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Et Al. (179 Scra 47)

    Uploaded by

    franz1222
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused by their dog biting a young girl, Theness, who later died. While visiting her father's property where the Vestils resided, Theness was bitten by the Vestils' dog. She developed rabies and died of complications. The court held that as possessors of the property and the dog, the Vestils were liable under Article 2183 of the Civil Code, which states that possessors of animals are responsible for any damages caused, regardless of whether the animal was tame or provoked. The Vestils' arguments that the dog was not theirs or the property solely theirs were rejected, as liability attaches to possession.

    Copyright:

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

    Vestil, Et Al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Et Al. (179 Scra 47)

    Uploaded by

    franz1222
    115 views2 pages
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused by their dog biting a young girl, Theness, who later died. While visiting her father's property where the Vestils resided, Theness was bitten by the Vestils' dog. She developed rabies and died of complications. The court held that as possessors of the property and the dog, the Vestils were liable under Article 2183 of the Civil Code, which states that possessors of animals are responsible for any damages caused, regardless of whether the animal was tame or provoked. The Vestils' arguments that the dog was not theirs or the property solely theirs were rejected, as liability attaches to possession.

    Original Title

    VESTIL, ET AL. VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. (179 SCRA 47).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 by their dog biting a young girl, Theness, who later died. While visiting her father's property where the Vestils resided, Theness was bitten by the Vestils' dog. She developed rabies and died of complications. The court held that as possessors of the property and the dog, the Vestils were liable under Article 2183 of the Civil Code, which states that possessors of animals are responsible for any damages caused, regardless of whether the animal was tame or provoked. The Vestils' arguments that the dog was not theirs or the property solely theirs were rejected, as liability attaches to possession.

    Copyright:

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

    Vestil, Et Al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Et Al. (179 Scra 47)

    Uploaded by

    franz1222
    The Vestils were found liable for damages caused by their dog biting a young girl, Theness, who later died. While visiting her father's property where the Vestils resided, Theness was bitten by the Vestils' dog. She developed rabies and died of complications. The court held that as possessors of the property and the dog, the Vestils were liable under Article 2183 of the Civil Code, which states that possessors of animals are responsible for any damages caused, regardless of whether the animal was tame or provoked. The Vestils' arguments that the dog was not theirs or the property solely theirs were rejected, as liability attaches to possession.

    Copyright:

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

    1.

    POSSESSORS /USERS OF ANIMALS


    • Article 2183 of the Civil Code
    VESTIL, ET AL. VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL. (179 SCRA 47)
    FACTS:
     Theness (3 years old) was bitten by the Vestil’s dog at the house of Vicente
    Miranda, Purita Vestil’s late father while playing with Purita’s daughter. She was
    treated for multiple lacerated wounds on the forehead and was administered with
    an anti-rabiesvaccine. She was later re-admitted due to vomiting of saliva. She died
    due to broncho-pneumonia. Her parents, the Uys, sued the Vestils for damages,
    holding them liable as possessors of the dog, Andoy. The RTC dismissed the
    complaint. The CA reversed ruling that Theness had died due to the dog
    bites. Under Article 2183 of the Civil Code., the Vestils are liable for damages as
    possessor of the property and the dog.
     On their part, the Vestils allege that the dog was tame and had merely been
    provoked, although no one had seen it bite Theness. Additionally, she had died of
    broncho-pneumonia, which had no correlation to dog bites. Anyway, she (Purita)
    could not be held liable because the dog does not belong to her but to Vicente
    Miranda, her father. She is not the sole owner of the unpartitioned property, there
    are other heirs. There are also other occupants of the house that maintain
    themselves out of a common fund, they do not pay rent because of their relation to
    her father but do occupy the property.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Vestils are liable for damages.

    HELD:
     Yes. The cause of Theness’ death was the dog bites. She developed hydrophobia, a
    symptom of rabies, and had died due to broncho-pneumonia, a complication of
    rabies. The Vestils are the possessors of the property and Purita is the only heir
    residing in Cebu City. They use it as a second home and visited weekly - renting it
    out to the boarders, paying for utilities and hiring the maid who cleaned and
    cooked for the house occupants. An occupant of the household (Marcial Lao)
    testified that they maintain the house for business purposes and that he is one of
    the boarder of said property. Liability is due to the possession of the dog,
    regardless of the ownership of the dog or property. Under Article 2183, regardless
    if the animal was tame or vicious or if it had been lost and removed from the
    control of the Vestils, liability still attach because one who possesses an animal for
    utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which the animal may had
    caused.
     Article 2183: The possessor of an animal… is responsible for the damage it may
    cause… The responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from
    the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
     Thus, the Vestils are liable.

    You might also like