Assignment: BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff v. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant; G.R. No. L-20089, 26 December 1964

Facts:
Two days (02 September 1954) before their wedding day, 04 September 1954, Velez left his bride, Wassmer, leaving a note that the wedding will not push through due to his mother's objections. On 03 September 1954, Velez sent a telegram to Wassmer assuring her that nothing has changed. Nothing was heard from Velez from thereon.

Wassmer sued for damages. Velez didn't respond and was declared in default. On 29 April 1955, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff PhP 2,000 as actual damages; PhP 25,000 as moral and exemplary damages; PhP 2,500 as attorney's fees; and the costs.

The defendant tried to appeal the Court's decision but was not followed through by the defendant. Later, an attempt by the Court to have an amicable settlement between the two parties but failed.

Issue:
Is a breach of promise to marry is actionable wrong in this case.

Held:
A breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But when a couple went through the motions of getting married - marriage license application, wedding entourage, church, dresses, etc. - and the wedding didn't pushed through, is different. This is a violation of Article 21 on the New Civil Code.

Moral damages are recoverable but exemplary damages are dependent if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudalent, reckless and oppressive manner.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion | A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

Case Digest for Articles 143-146: Carino v. Carino G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001

Case Digest: Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent | A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014