Scribd
Upload
169 views

Batarra V Marcos

The plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for breaching a promise of marriage after inducing her to have sexual relations with him. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that both parties were at fault for the immoral act and the plaintiff could not recover damages. As the plaintiff was not under 23 years old, there was no crime of seduction by the defendant. The civil code prevents recovery for acts considered criminal if common to both parties. The defendant was acquitted of the complaint.

Uploaded by

BGod
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
169 views

Batarra V Marcos

The plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for breaching a promise of marriage after inducing her to have sexual relations with him. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that both parties were at fault for the immoral act and the plaintiff could not recover damages. As the plaintiff was not under 23 years old, there was no crime of seduction by the defendant. The civil code prevents recovery for acts considered criminal if common to both parties. The defendant was acquitted of the complaint.

Uploaded by

BGod
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

#21.

BATARRA v MARCOS
G.R. No. L-2929. December 7, 1906
Bea Jose 

FACTS:
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the breach of promise of
marriage by the defendant after she was induced by the defendant to
submit herself to sexual relations with him on account of the promise
of marriage.

ISSUE:
      W/N the defendant may be liable for damages? (NO)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Lower Court  ruled in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of
500php.

RULING:

The general rule that a person will be held liable when he causes
damage due to his own fault or negligence will not be applicable in
this case since the plaintiff voluntarily participated in the immoral
consideration of engaging in the sexual act. Because the fault equally
lay on both parties, there cannot be a recovery by one against the
other.

The case cannot also be considered as a crime of seduction by the


defendant since the plaintiff is not under 23 years old. Thus there
cannot be an indemnification for the reason of seduction. The civil
code also prevents recovery if the act done is considered as a crime
and was common to both parties.

DISPOSITION: Judgement is reversed and the defendant is acquitted


of the complaint. 

You might also like