Erlinda Estopa filed a lawsuit against Loreto Piansay Jr. for breaching his promise to marry her after a couple months of courting her. She claimed she suffered social humiliation, mental anguish, damaged reputation, wounded feelings, and moral shock from his backing out of the marriage promise. However, the court ruled that the mere breach of a marriage promise is not grounds for a lawsuit according to the New Civil Code. As Erlinda Estopa is not entitled to any damages, the court absolved Loreto Piansay Jr. of all liability and ordered that he not be required to pay any costs.
Erlinda Estopa filed a lawsuit against Loreto Piansay Jr. for breaching his promise to marry her after a couple months of courting her. She claimed she suffered social humiliation, mental anguish, damaged reputation, wounded feelings, and moral shock from his backing out of the marriage promise. However, the court ruled that the mere breach of a marriage promise is not grounds for a lawsuit according to the New Civil Code. As Erlinda Estopa is not entitled to any damages, the court absolved Loreto Piansay Jr. of all liability and ordered that he not be required to pay any costs.
Erlinda Estopa filed a lawsuit against Loreto Piansay Jr. for breaching his promise to marry her after a couple months of courting her. She claimed she suffered social humiliation, mental anguish, damaged reputation, wounded feelings, and moral shock from his backing out of the marriage promise. However, the court ruled that the mere breach of a marriage promise is not grounds for a lawsuit according to the New Civil Code. As Erlinda Estopa is not entitled to any damages, the court absolved Loreto Piansay Jr. of all liability and ordered that he not be required to pay any costs.
Erlinda Estopa filed a lawsuit against Loreto Piansay Jr. for breaching his promise to marry her after a couple months of courting her. She claimed she suffered social humiliation, mental anguish, damaged reputation, wounded feelings, and moral shock from his backing out of the marriage promise. However, the court ruled that the mere breach of a marriage promise is not grounds for a lawsuit according to the New Civil Code. As Erlinda Estopa is not entitled to any damages, the court absolved Loreto Piansay Jr. of all liability and ordered that he not be required to pay any costs.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
ERLINDA
ESTOPA, Plaintiff-Appellee, LORETO PIANSAY, JR
v.
The mere breach of a promise to marry is
not actionable and no moral damages may be awarded in a breach of promise suit. (This is the entire case.) The plaintiff Erlinda Estopa, a beautiful girl of twenty-three, residing in Bago, Negros Occidental, with her widowed mother, Felicidad Estopa, stated that she fell in love and submitted herself completely to the defendant Loreto Piansay, Jr., sometime in September, 1957, after a courtship that lasted for a couple of months during which period the defendant consistently promised and succeeded to make her believe in him that he was going to marry her; that sometime in December, 1957, the plaintiff was informed reliably that defendant was backing out from his promise of marriage so she demanded defendants compliance to his promise in order to vindicate her honor, and plaintiff went to the extent of asking the help of defendants parents, but all her efforts were in vain. Finally, realizing that her efforts were futile but knowing that her cause was not completely lost, she decided to file her complaint, not to compel defendant to marry her, but to demand from him a compensation for the damages that she sustained." There is no claim for any other kind of damages. In fact, Erlinda Estopa filed no brief
here. And her complaint merely alleged "social
humiliation, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and moral shock." We have today decided that in this jurisdiction, under the New Civil Code, the mere breach of a promise to marry is not actionable. (Hermosisima v. Court of Appeals, Supra, 631); and we have reversed the Cebu courts award for moral damages in a breach of promise suit. Consistently with such ruling, Loreto Piansay, Jr. may not be condemned to pay moral damages, in this case. Now, as plaintiff has no right to moral damages, she may not demand exemplary damages. (She lays no claim to temperate or compensatory damages.) "While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. (Art. 2234, New Civil Code.) Therefore, as plaintiff is not entitled to any damages at all, there is no reason to require Piansay, Jr. to satisfy attorneys fees. Judgment reversed, defendant absolved from all liability. No costs.