1) Defendant, a married Chinese man, began visiting the family of Lolita Pe under the pretense of wanting her to teach him to pray the rosary.
2) Defendant and Lolita began an affair and exchanged love letters. When her family discovered the relationship, they forbade Defendant from seeing Lolita.
3) In 1957, Lolita disappeared from her family's home, leaving behind only her clothes and a love note from Defendant arranging to meet. Her whereabouts remain unknown.
1) Defendant, a married Chinese man, began visiting the family of Lolita Pe under the pretense of wanting her to teach him to pray the rosary.
2) Defendant and Lolita began an affair and exchanged love letters. When her family discovered the relationship, they forbade Defendant from seeing Lolita.
3) In 1957, Lolita disappeared from her family's home, leaving behind only her clothes and a love note from Defendant arranging to meet. Her whereabouts remain unknown.
1) Defendant, a married Chinese man, began visiting the family of Lolita Pe under the pretense of wanting her to teach him to pray the rosary.
2) Defendant and Lolita began an affair and exchanged love letters. When her family discovered the relationship, they forbade Defendant from seeing Lolita.
3) In 1957, Lolita disappeared from her family's home, leaving behind only her clothes and a love note from Defendant arranging to meet. Her whereabouts remain unknown.
1) Defendant, a married Chinese man, began visiting the family of Lolita Pe under the pretense of wanting her to teach him to pray the rosary.
2) Defendant and Lolita began an affair and exchanged love letters. When her family discovered the relationship, they forbade Defendant from seeing Lolita.
3) In 1957, Lolita disappeared from her family's home, leaving behind only her clothes and a love note from Defendant arranging to meet. Her whereabouts remain unknown.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
Republic of the Philippines two eventually fell in love with each other and
SUPREME COURT conducted clandestine trysts not only in the town of
Manila Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. They exchanged love notes with each EN BANC other the contents of which reveal not only their infatuation for each other but also the extent to which they had carried their relationship. The rumors about G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962 their love affairs reached the ears of Lolita's parents sometime, in 1955, and since then defendant was CECILIO PE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, forbidden from going to their house and from further vs. seeing Lolita. The plaintiffs even filed deportation ALFONSO PE, defendant-appellee. proceedings against defendant who is a Chinese national. The affair between defendant and Lolita Cecilio L. Pe for and in his own behalf as plaintiff- continued nonetheless. appellant. Leodegario L. Mogol for defendant-appellee. Sometime in April, 1957, Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence at 54-B España BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Extension, Quezon City. On April 14, 1957, Lolita disappeared from said house. After she left, her brothers and sisters checked up her thing and found Plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First that Lolita's clothes were gone. However, plaintiffs Instance of Manila to recover moral, compensatory, found a note on a crumpled piece of paper inside exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of Lolita's aparador. Said note, written on a small slip of P94,000.00 exclusive of attorney's fees and expenses paper approximately 4" by 3" in size, was in a of litigation. handwriting recognized to be that of defendant's. In English it reads: Defendant, after denying some allegations contained in the complaint, set up as a defense that the facts Honey, suppose I leave here on Sunday alleged therein, even if true, do not constitute a valid night, and that's 13th of this month and we cause of action. will have a date on the 14th, that's Monday morning at 10 a.m. After trial, the lower court, after finding that defendant had carried on a love affair with one Lolita Pe, an Reply unmarried woman, being a married man himself, declared that defendant cannot be held liable for moral damages it appearing that plaintiffs failed to Love prove that defendant, being aware of his marital status, deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the affection. So it rendered decision dismissing the police authorities and the NBI but up to the present complaint.1äwphï1.ñët there is no news or trace of her whereabouts.
Plaintiffs brought this case on appeal before this The present action is based on Article 21 of the New Court on the ground that the issues involved are Civil Code which provides: purely of law. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury The facts as found by the trial court are: Plaintiffs are to another in a manner which is contrary to the parents, brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. At morals, good customs or public policy shall the time of her disappearance on April 14, 1957, compensate the latter for the damage. Lolita was 24 years old and unmarried. Defendant is a married man and works as agent of the La Perla There is no doubt that the claim of plaintiffs for Cigar and Cigarette Factory. He used to stay in the damages is based on the fact that defendant, being a town of Gasan, Marinduque, in connection with his married man, carried on a love affair with Lolita Pe aforesaid occupation. Lolita was staying with her thereby causing plaintiffs injury in a manner contrary parents in the same town. Defendant was an adopted to morals, good customs and public policy. But in son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral spite of the fact that plaintiffs have clearly established relative of Lolita's father. Because of such fact and the that in illicit affair was carried on between defendant similarity in their family name, defendant became and Lolita which caused great damage to the name close to the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member and reputation of plaintiffs who are her parents, of their family. Sometime in 1952, defendant brothers and sisters, the trial court considered their frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he complaint not actionable for the reason that they wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. The failed to prove that defendant deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's affection Thus, the trial court said: "In the absence of proof on this point, the court may not presume that it was the defendant who deliberately induced such relationship. We cannot be unmindful of the uncertainties and sometimes inexplicable mysteries of the human emotions. It is a possibility that the defendant and Lolita simply fell in love with each other, not only without any desire on their part, but also against their better judgment and in full consciousness of what it will bring to both of them. This is specially so with respect to Lolita, being an unmarried woman, falling in love with defendant who is a married man."
We disagree with this view. The circumstances under
which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead, to any other conclusion than that it was he who, thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. This is shown by the fact that defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Because of the frequency of his visits to the latter's family who was allowed free access because he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member of her family, the two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine love affairs not only in Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. When the rumors about their illicit affairs reached the knowledge of her parents, defendant was forbidden from going to their house and even from seeing Lolita. Plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings against defendant who is a Chinese national. Nevertheless, defendant continued his love affairs with Lolita until she disappeared from the parental home. Indeed, no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately, but through a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
reversed. Defendant is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigations. Costs against appellee.
8.3 ESTABLISHMENT - Town Panchayats - Sanitary Inspectors of Town Panchayats - Constitution of Separate Service Tamil Nadu Sanitary Inspectors of Town Panchayats - Rules Published
