Short answer. Not simply because it was an heirloom. Civil Code Article 2218 does not itself create a right to moral damages — it says that where moral damages are being awarded on some other legal ground, the sentimental value of the property, real or personal, may be considered in fixing the amount.
What the law says
In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be considered.
Civil Code, Article 2218 — Sentimental Value Considered. Read the full provision →
What Article 2218 actually does
The article is a single, narrow rule: in the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be considered. Read closely, this is not a provision that grants moral damages for destroyed property on its own. It operates once moral damages are already being adjudicated on some legal ground, and it adds that the sentimental value the property held for you is something the court may weigh in when working out the amount.
Why "may be considered" is discretionary
The wording gives the court latitude rather than a formula. Sentimental value is not assigned a fixed multiplier or a guaranteed sum under this article; it is simply one factor the court is permitted to take into account. That means an heirloom's sentimental significance can support a larger award than the item's replacement cost alone would justify, but this article does not promise any particular outcome or amount.
What this article does not tell you
This text does not state what legal ground would actually make moral damages available for a destroyed heirloom in the first place — that depends on how the item was destroyed and whose conduct caused it, which is governed by separate provisions this brief does not cover. Article 2218 assumes moral damages are already on the table and speaks only to how sentimental value factors into quantifying them.
What to document if this happened to you
Preserve whatever shows the item's history and meaning to your family — photographs, how long it was kept, how it was passed down, and anything establishing why it mattered beyond its market value. Also document exactly how the destruction happened and who was involved, since that will determine whether a claim for moral damages is even available before sentimental value comes into play. Bring both threads to a lawyer together.
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.
- Emmanuel G. Herbosa and Rosemarie L. Herbosa vs. Court of Appeals, and Professional Video Equipment, G.R. No. 119086, January 25, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nancy Go, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 114791, May 29, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →