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.