022 Pe v. Pe PDF

7/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pe vs. Pe
No. L-17396. May 30, 1962.
CECILIOPE, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ALFONSO

PE, defendant-appellee.
Damages; Acts contrary to morals.—Defendant won Lolita's

affection thru an ingenious scheme or trickery and seduced her 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
defendant 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. Held:The wrong defendant has caused Lolita 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.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of

Manila.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Cecilio L. Pe for and in his own behalf as plaintiff-
appellant.
Leodegario L. Mogol for defendant-appellee.
201
VOL. 5, MAY 30, 1962 201

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bcf560d2a3ebe57eb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
Pe vs. Pe
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First

Instance of Manila to recover moral, compensatory,
exemplary and corrective damages in the amount of
P94,000.00 exclusive of attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation.
Defendant, after denying some allegations contained in
the complaint, set up as a defense that the facts alleged
therein, even if true, do not constitute a valid cause of
action.
After trial, the lower court, after finding that defendant
had carried on a love affair with one Lolita Pe, an
unmarried woman, being a married man himself, declared
that defendant cannot be held liable for moral damages it
appearing that plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant,
being aware of his marital status, deliberately and in bad
faith tried to win Lolita's affection. So it rendered decision
dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiffs brought this case on appeal before this Court
on the ground that the issues involved are purely of law.
The facts as found by the trial court are: Plaintiffs are
the parents, brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. At the
time of her disappearance on April 14, 1957, Lolita was 24
years old and unmarried. Defendant is a married man and
works as agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette
Factory. He used tostay in the town of Gasan, Marinduque,
in connection with his aforesaid occupation. Lolita was
staying with her parents in the same town. Defendant was
an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral
relative of Lolita's father. Because of such fact and the
similarity in their family name, defendant became close to
the plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of their
family. Sometime in 1952, defendant frequented the house
of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him
how to pray the rosary. The two eventually fell in love with
each other and conducted clandestine trysts not only in the
town of Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach
in a barrio school. They exchanged love notes with each
other the contents of which reveal not only their
infatuation for each other but also the extent to which they
had carried their relationship.
202
Pe vs. Pe
The rumors about their love affairs reached the ears of

Lolita's parents sometime in 1955, and since then
defendant was forbidden from going to their house and
from further seeing Lolita. The plaintiffs even filed
deportation proceedings against defendant who is a
Chinese national. The affair between defendant and Lolita
continued nonetheless.
Sometime in April, 1957, Lolita was staying with her
brothers and sisters at their residence at 54-B España
Extension, Quezon City. On April 14, 1957, Lolita
disappeared from said house. After she left, her brothers
and sisters checked up her things and found that Lolita's
clothes were gone. However, plaintiffs found a note on a
crumpled piece of paper inside Lolita's aparador. Said note,
written on a small slip of paper approximately 4" by 3" in
size, was in a handwriting recognized to be that of
defendant's. In English it reads:
"Honey, suppose I leave here on Sunday night, and that's 13th of

this month and we will have a date on the 14th, that's Monday
morning at 10 a.m.
Reply
Love"
The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the police

authorities and the NBI but up to the present there is no
news or trace of her whereabouts.
The present action is based on Article 21 of the New
Civil Code which provides:
"Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a

manner which is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damage."
There is no doubt that the claim of plaintiffs for damages is

based on the fact that defendant, being a married man,
carried on a love affair with Lolita Pe thereby causing
plaintiffs injury in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy. But in spite of the fact that
plaintiffs have clearly established that an illicit affair was
carried on between defendant and Lolita which caused
great damage to the name and reputation of plain-
203
VOL. 5, MAY 30, 1962 203

Pe vs. Pe
tiffs who are her parents, brothers and sisters, the trial
court considered their complaint not actionable for the
reason that they 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 im-
204

David vs. Alaska Lumber Co.
measurable 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.
Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,

Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Decision reversed.
Notes.—Contrast this case with that of Tanjanco vs.

Court of Appeals, L-18680, Dec. 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 994,
where the Court ruled that there was no seduction when a
woman of adult age maintained sexual relations with
defendant and consequently, she had no cause of action.
See annotationon "Acts Contrary to Morals, Good
Customs, or Public Policy" under Tenchaves vs. Escano, L-
19671, July 26, 1966, 17 SCRA 674, 686-88.
____________
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

022 Pe v. Pe PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

022 Pe v. Pe PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

022 Pe v. Pe PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 005

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. L-17396. May 30, 1962.

CECILIOPE, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ALFONSO

Damages; Acts contrary to morals.—Defendant won Lolita's

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First Instance of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VOL. 5, MAY 30, 1962 201

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

Plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The rumors about their love affairs reached the ears of

"Honey, suppose I leave here on Sunday night, and that's 13th of

The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the police

"Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a

There is no doubt that the claim of plaintiffs for damages is

VOL. 5, MAY 30, 1962 203

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

measurable considering the fact that he is a married man.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,

Notes.—Contrast this case with that of Tanjanco vs.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like