Wassmer v. Velez 12 SCRA 648; December 26,1964

Wassmer v. Velez

Doctrine: As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation, and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different.

Facts: On August 23, 1954 plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued.

Their wedding was set for September 4, 1954. Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances. The bride-to-be's trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased. Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and gifts received.

And then, with but two days before the wedding, defendant, who was then 28 years old, simply left a note for plaintiff stating: "Will have to postpone wedding-My mother opposes it . . ." He enplaned to his home city in Mindanao, and the next day, the day before the wedding, he wired plaintiff: "Nothing changed rest assured returning soon". But he never returned and was never heard from again.

Sued by Beatriz for damages, Velez filed no answer and was declared in default.

Issue: WON moral damages as recoverable

Ruling:

"Mere breach of a promise to marry" is not an actionable wrong. However, that the extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless for Article 21 of said Code provides that "Any person who willfully 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".

Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described 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 aforesaid.

Per express provision of Article 2219 (10) of the new Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code. As to exemplary damages, defendant contends that the same could not be adjudged against him because under Article 2232 of the new Civil Code the condition precedent is that "the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner". The argument is devoid of merit as under the above-narrated circumstances of this case defendant clearly acted in a "wanton . . . reckless [and] oppressive manner." This Court's opinion, however, is that considering the particular circumstances of this case, P15,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages is deemed to be a reasonable award.