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