16,1 De los Angeles ayid Villegas: Synophthalmia 101 
of infanticide, if it were to be applied to the present case, is 
properly eliminated by the fact that there is lack of development 
of the organs necessary to maintain life, and by the undersize 
of the foetus, which presumes weakness. 
On the second point, inquiry may arise as to whether such 
a monster as this possesses the human shape entitled to civil 
personality as provided by Article 30 of our Civil Code, which 
says that “in order to be vested with civil rights a child must 
have human shape and suiwive twenty-four hours after birth.” 
The importance of this determination rests upon the fact that, 
although the newborn infant is medically classified as a monster, 
yet if it is legally pronounced from the medical evidence to have 
human shape, and if it is born alive and lives at least twenty- 
four hours after birth, it may inherit or transmit an estate to 
its heirs-at-law, as if it were a normally formed child. Assuming 
that the present case was born alive and lived twenty-four hours, 
the question therefore may be formulated as to whether it has 
human shape and is entitled to civil rights. As no case of this 
kind has as yet been brought before the jurist in the Philippines, 
we cannot here quote court opinions on this matter; but in other 
countries conflicting decisions have been given regarding mon- 
strosities, because of the lack of a precise legal definition as to 
what is meant by “human shape.” 
According to the meaning of English law, malpositions, trans- 
positions, or defects of the internal organs or any of the cavities 
do not constitute monstrous births ; so that the legal question 
relates only to external shape, not to internal conformation. 
However, a mere deformity in any part of the body, such as 
supernumerary fingers or toes, or twisted or defoinned limbs, 
does not constitute a monster in law. On the other hand, a 
blighted foetus or a mole is not legally a child, so far as the 
succession to property is concerned. It appears from Lord 
Coke’s description of a monster — “which hath not the shape of 
mankind” — that the law must necessarily be guided in its deci- 
sion by the description of the monstrous birth given by a medical 
witness. Hence, each case must be decided by the peculiarities 
attending it. 
In French jurisprudence the circumstance seems to be dif- 
ferent ; if the monstrosity be such as to cause its death soon after 
birth, or if it lack capacity to maintain independent life, the 
child is to be pronounced not viable and therefore not capable 
of acquiring civil rights.^ 
’ Taylor’s Manual of Medical Jurisprudence, 12th Am. ed. 623 and 624. 
