Quimiguing vs. Icao

Share this post!

CARMEN QUIMIGUING, Suing through her parents, ANTONIO QUIMIGUING and JACOBA CABILIN, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
FELIX ICAO, defendant-appellee.

G.R. No. L-­26795
July 31, 1970

FACTS:

Carmen Quimiguing’s family and Felix Icao were neighbors and had close and confidential relations. Despite being married, Icao succeeded in having carnal intercourse with Carmen several times by force and intimidation, and without her consent. Despite efforts and drugs supplied by Isao, Carmen became pregnant and had to stop studying. Hence, she filed for support at P120.00 per month, damages and attorney’s fees.

Icao moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action since the complaint did not allege that the child had been born. The trial judge sustained Icao’s motion and dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, Carmen moved to amend the complaint to allege that as a result of the intercourse, she had later given birth to a baby girl. However, the court ruled that no amendment was allowable since the original complaint averred no cause of action. Wherefore, the plaintiff appealed directly to this Court.

ISSUE:

May an action for support be filed for an unborn child?

HELD:

YES. A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The unborn child, therefore, has a right to support from its progenitors, particularly of Ilao(whose paternity is deemed admitted for the purpose of the motion to dismiss), even if the said child is only “en ventre de sa mere;;” just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn, may receive donations as prescribed by Article 742 of the same Code, and its being ignored by the parent in his testament may result in preterition of a forced heir that annuls the institution of the testamentary heir, even if such child should be born after the death of the testator (Article 854, Civil Code).

The lower court’s theory that Article 291 of the Civil Code declaring that support is an obligation of parents and illegitimate children “does not contemplate support to children as yet unborn,” violates Article 40 aforesaid, besides imposing a condition that nowhere appears in the text of Article 291. It is true that Article 40 prescribing that “the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it” adds further “provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article” (i.e., that the foetus be alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother’s womb). This proviso, however, is not a condition precedent to the right of the conceived child;; for if it were, the first part of Article 40 would become entirely useless and ineffective.

A second reason for reversing the orders appealed from is that for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust (as averred in the original complaint in this case) constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Thus, independently of the right to Support of the child she was carrying, plaintiff herself had a cause of action for damages under the terms of the complaint;; and the order dismissing it for failure to state a cause of action was doubly in error.



👋 HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.

What's on your mind? Type it 👇😃