My relative died in a vehicular accident — besides funeral expenses, what else can the family claim from the person at fault?

A fixed amount for the death, then heads on top

Article 2206 begins by fixing a minimum amount of damages for a death caused by a crime or quasi-delict, payable even where there were mitigating circumstances. What matters far more to a family is what comes next, because the article continues: in addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;. The value of a claim lives in these heads, not in the floor.

The earning capacity of the person who died

This head is not a payment for the survivors' own lost income; it compensates the capacity the deceased had to earn, and the indemnity goes to the heirs. Note the strength of the wording — it is to be assessed and awarded in every case, with a single exception for a deceased who had no earning capacity at death on account of a permanent physical disability the defendant did not cause. A person who worked without payslips still had earning capacity, so the practical task is evidencing what they actually made: records of takings, contracts, remittances, tax filings, the testimony of those who paid them.

Moral damages, and who may demand them

The third head is the one families ask about first: (3) 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. Read the enumeration closely, because it is specific about who holds the claim — the spouse, descendants both legitimate and illegitimate, and ascendants. Grief is not the measure here either; Article 2216 leaves the assessment of moral damages to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case, and no proof of pecuniary loss is required for them.

The dependant who is not an heir

The second head is easily missed and can matter most to the person left worst off. Where the deceased was obliged to give support, someone who received that support but is not an heir called to the inheritance may demand support from the person who caused the death, for a period not exceeding five years and of a duration the court fixes. Two other provisions shape what is finally recovered: Article 2199 allows compensation only for pecuniary loss duly proved, and Article 2207 subrogates an insurer that has already indemnified the loss to the rights against the wrongdoer.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

• Esther Victoria Alcala Vda. De Alcañeses vs. Jose S. Alcañeses, substituted by his legal, G.R. No. 187847, June 30, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Sulpicio Line, Inc. vs. Domingo E. Curso, et al, G.R. No. 157009, March 17, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• People of the Philippines vs. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 2199 — Actual Damages Must Be Proved
• Civil Code, Article 2207 — Insurance and Subrogation