Janette Sumagaysay Legal Writing (5-7, Tuesday) Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region Regional Trial

Court Manila, Branch I

Civil Case No. 3

April 1, 2013

Mary Jean Dela Cruz, plaintiff, vs. Juan A. Santos , defendant. Atty. Sakura Naruto for plaintiff. F.P. Gabriel, Jr. for respondents. XXXX, J.: A counter-affidavit was filed by the defendant praying for the dismissal of the alleged breach of promise to marry complaint filed by the plaintiff. The main issue before us is whether moral damages are recoverable, under our laws, for breach of promise to marry. The pertinent facts are: On February 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint praying for moral damages in this court for the alleged breach of promise to marry by the defendant. Plaintiff avers that the defendant, despite all their wedding preparations have left her on the altar on the day of the wedding ceremony. Plaintiff asserts in the complaint that together with her family members, she suffers humiliation and financial damages from the wedding. Defendant, on his counter-affidavit admitted his promise to marry the complainant but denies all the allegations of the plaintiff that she suffers damages from such. The general rule is that breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. There is no provision in the Civil Code which authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry. However, the exception was that when the act is not a mere breach of promise to marry but constitutes one where damages pursuant to Art. 21 of the Civil Code may be recovered, such as: 1. Where the woman is a victim of moral seduction. (Gashem Shookat Baksh v. CA, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993) 2. Where one formally sets a wedding and go through and spend for all the preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony was about to be solemnized.( Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L20089 , December 26, 1964) Provided the aforementioned facts, this court is not convinced with the defense put forward by the defendant.

To formally set a wedding and go through all the preparations 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. Article 21 of the Civil Code stated that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. This Court found that the defendant is liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages based on the particular circumstances therein. In the case at hand, the wedding date has already been fixed. Invitations for the wedding have been even circulated. Although, defendant claims that he shoulders all the expenses and he talk with the complainant two days prior the wedding to cut it off, the defendant clearly and unjustifiably causes loss or injury to the complainant in a manner that it is contrary to law and good customs which thus favors the plaintiff to secure for moral damages and reimbursement to the expenses. It is so ordered.