Breach of promise to marry

APOLONIO TANJANCO V. CA and ARACELI SANTOS 18 SCRA 994

December 17, 1996

FACTS:
About December 1957, Apolonio courted Arceli both of adult age. The defendant, Apolonio expressed
his undying love affection to Araceli also in due time reciprocated the tender feelings. Due to Apolonios
protestation and promise of marriage Araceli consented and acceded to Apolonios pleas for carnal
knowledge. That regularly until December 1959, through his protestations of love and promises of
marriage, defendant succeeded in having carnal access to plaintiff, as a result of which the latter
conceived a child. Araceli informed Apolonio and pleaded with him to make good his promises of
marriage but instead of honoring his promises and righting his wrong, Apolonio stopped and refrained
from seeing Araceli since about July 1959 has not visited her and to all intents and purposes has broken
their engagement and his promises. To avoid embarrassment and social humiliation , the plaintiff had to
resign her job as a Secretary of IBM Phil (salary of 230 php), and thereby unable to support herself.
Plaintiff suffered mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social
humiliation.
ISSUE:
WON defendants promise to marry sufficient to constitute seduction, thus making him liable for the
damages claimed by the plaintiff.
HELD:
No, it is not. Seduction is more than mere sexual intercourse or a breach of promise to marry. It
connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of
the seducer to which the woman has yielded. In this case, for 1 whole year, the woman maintained
intimate sexual relations with the defendant, and such conduct is incompatible with the idea of
seduction. Plainly here there is voluntariness and mutual passion, for had the plaintiff been deceived,
she would not have again yielded to his embraces for a year.