Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Facts:: Gasheem Shookat Baksh, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Marilou T. GONZALES, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    AN NA
    Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez were engaged to be married. They obtained a marriage license and sent out invitations for a wedding scheduled on September 4, 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Francisco left for his home province without informing Beatriz and sent a telegram postponing the wedding because his mother opposed it. Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. The court found that Francisco acted unjustifiably in formally setting a wedding date and going through all the preparations only to back out right before the wedding. The court ordered Francisco to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts:: Gasheem Shookat Baksh, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Marilou T. GONZALES, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    AN NA
    30 views2 pages
    Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez were engaged to be married. They obtained a marriage license and sent out invitations for a wedding scheduled on September 4, 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Francisco left for his home province without informing Beatriz and sent a telegram postponing the wedding because his mother opposed it. Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. The court found that Francisco acted unjustifiably in formally setting a wedding date and going through all the preparations only to back out right before the wedding. The court ordered Francisco to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    torts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez were engaged to be married. They obtained a marriage license and sent out invitations for a wedding scheduled on September 4, 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Francisco left for his home province without informing Beatriz and sent a telegram postponing the wedding because his mother opposed it. Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. The court found that Francisco acted unjustifiably in formally setting a wedding date and going through all the preparations only to back out right before the wedding. The court ordered Francisco to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views2 pages

    Facts:: Gasheem Shookat Baksh, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Marilou T. GONZALES, Respondents

    Uploaded by

    AN NA
    Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez were engaged to be married. They obtained a marriage license and sent out invitations for a wedding scheduled on September 4, 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Francisco left for his home province without informing Beatriz and sent a telegram postponing the wedding because his mother opposed it. Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. The court found that Francisco acted unjustifiably in formally setting a wedding date and going through all the preparations only to back out right before the wedding. The court ordered Francisco to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney's fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    WASSMER vs.

    VELEZ,
    G.R No. L-20089,December 26,1964
    BENGZON, J.P., J.:

    FACTS:

    Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez decided to get married. They applied and acquired marriage license and set
    the wedding on September 4, 1954. Necessary publication and preparations including sending off invitations were
    done. Two days before the scheduled wedding, Francisco went home to his province without properly notifying
    Beatriz. He sent a telegram that they have to postpone the wedding because his mother opposes it. He gave an
    assurance that he will return but he never did. Beatriz sued for damages, Francisco filed no answer and was declared
    in default. The Court ordered Francisco to pay for actual damages, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s
    fees.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an actionable wrong?

    HELD:
    Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the
    preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different.
    This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in
    damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil Code. Any violation of Article 21 entitles the injured party to
    receive an award for moral damages as properly awarded by the lower court in this case. Further, the award of
    exemplary damages is also proper. Here, the circumstances of this case show that Velez, in breaching his promise to
    Wassmer, acted in wanton, reckless, and oppressive manner – this warrants the imposition of exemplary damages
    against him.

    GASHEEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T.


    GONZALES, respondents
    G. R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993

    FACTS:

    Petitioner was a medicine student at Lyceum Northwestern Colleges at Dagupan City. He was an Iranian


    exchange student and was 29 years old. Respondent was a former waitress on a luncheonette, and was 22 years old.
    Petitioner was allegedly the lover of the respondent, and was said to promise marriage to the latter, which convinced
    her to live with him in his apartment. It was even alleged that the petitioner went to the house of the respondent to
    inform her family about the marriage on the end of the semester. However, the marriage did not materialize, with
    several beatings and maltreatment experienced by the respondent from the petitioner.

    The case was filed in the RTC of Pangasinan, and the decision was held in favor of the respondent. However, the
    petitioner claimed that the judgment of the RTC was an error, for the claims of the respondent are not true, and that
    he did not know about the custom of the Filipinos; his acts were in accordance of his custom. The decision of the
    RTC was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the respondent could claim payment for the damages incurred by the petitioner.

    RULING:
    Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However, since the respondent was proved to have a good
    moral character, and that she had just let her virginity be taken away by the petitioner since the latter offered a
    promise of marriage, then she could ask for payment for damages. Furthermore, since she let her lover, the
    petitioner, “deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to marry was true, and not due to her carnal desire,
    then she could have her claims against the petitioner. Moreover, the father of the respondent had already looked for
    pigs and chicken for the marriage reception and the sponsors for the marriage, and then damages were caused by the
    petitioner against the respondents, which qualified the claims of the respondent against the petitioner.

    You might also like