BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant; G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964
Article 21: Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Rationale:
Mere breach of promise to marry is not actionable. However, Article 21 of the New Civil code provides that "any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."
Facts:
1. Beatrix Wassmer and Francisco Velez were about to get married on 04 September 1954, when 2 days before the wedding, Velez left a note saying the wedding will have to be postponed because his mother opposes it. The next day, before the wedding, he said nothing changed, rest assured returning soon. But he never returned and was never heard from again.
2. Beatrix sued for damages. Velez filed no answer; was declared in default.
3. Plaintiff adduced evidence before the clerk of court as commissioner, and on April 29, 1955, judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual damages; P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; P2,500.00 as attorney's fees; and the costs.
4. On appeal, Velez argued that his failure to attend the scheduled wedding was because of fortuitous events. He further argued that he cannot be held civilly liable for breaching his promise to marry Wassmer because there is no law upon which such an action may be grounded. He also contested the award of exemplary and moral damages against him for being excessive.
ISSUE:
Whether or not damages can be claimed from mere breach of promise to marry.
RULING:
NO. It was previously held that "mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong."
However, Article 21 of the New Civil code provides that "any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."
The record shows that:
1. They applied for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued
2. Their wedding was set for September 4, 1954. Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances
3. The bride-to-be's trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased
4. Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and gifts received
Then, just 2 days before the wedding, the 28 y/o defendant simply left a note saying the wedding will have to be postponed, mother opposes it. He enplaned to his home City in Mindanao and the next day, the day before the wedding, he wrote: nothing changed, returning soon, but never returned and was never heard of again.
|
DEFENDANT’s ARGUMENT |
SUPREME COURT RULING |
|
Ø mere breach of promise to marry
is not actionable. Ø Damages awarded totaling to
P25,000.00 should be totally abrogated. Ø Exemplary damages could not be
adjudged against him because under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code the
condition precedent is that "the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. |
Ø Yes, mere breach of promise to
marry is not actionable. However, to formally set a wedding and go through
all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it
when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. It is contrary
to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in
accordance with Article 21. Ø Article 2219 of the New Civil
Code, moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of
said Code. Ø Considering the circumstances of
this case, the defendant clearly acted in a "wanton ... , reckless [and]
oppressive manner." |
Comments
Post a Comment