Sulpicio Lines, Inc.

vs.
Domingo E. Curso, et al.

G.R. No. 157009 March 17, 2010

Facts
On October 23, 1988, Dr. Curso boarded at the port of Manila the MV Doa Marilyn, an
inter-island vessel owned and operated by petitioner Sulpicio Lines, Inc., bound for
Tacloban City. Unfortunately, the vessel sank in the afternoon of October 24, 1988 while
at sea due to inclement sea and weather conditions brought about by typhoon Unsang.
Dr. Curso's surviving brothers and sisters (herein respondents) sued the petitioner for
breach of contract of carriage based on negligence. In their complaint, they claimed that
as their parents had predeceased Dr. Curso, who died single and without issue, they
were entitled to recover moral damages for their sibling's death as successors-in-
interest.

Issue(s)
Are the Cursos entitled to recover moral damages?

Ruling
No. As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages
predicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud or bad faith. As an exception,
moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of contract of carriage that results in
the death of a passenger,in accordance with Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3),
of the Civil Code. Article 1764 states the principle that the section of the Civil Code on
Damages shall be made to apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of
contract of a common carrier. Article 2206 (3) on the other hand, enumerates the
persons entitled to the award of damages, to wit: "The spouse, legitimate and
illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages
for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased." The foregoing legal
provisions set forth the persons entitled to moral damages. The omission from Article
2206 (3) of the brothers and sisters of the deceased passenger reveals the legislative
intent to exclude them from the recovery of moral damages for mental anguish by
reason of the death of the deceased. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.