PERSONS Case Digest on Wassmer vs Velez http://www.scribd.

com/doc/96878121/Case-Digest-on-Wassmer-vs-Velez Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer are to be wed because of their mutual promise of love with each other on September 4, 1952. Francisco left for Cagayan De Oro two days before the wedding, leaving her a note that the weddings postponed because his mother opposes it. The day before the we dding, he sent a telegram stating that he will comeback for the wedding but he never did. Beatriz filed for damages, and judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay actual(P2,000.00),moral(P25,000.00) and exemplary(P2,500.00) damages. Defendant now asserts that the judgment against him is contrary to law, given that there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry. Issue: Whether or not breach of promise to marry is actionable. Held: No it is not actionable for there is no provision in the Civil Code but the case is not a mere breachof promise to marry. Francisco must still be punished for the damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil Code. Ratio: The SC perpetuated that though breach of promise to marry is not actionable because there is no provision in the Civil Code, the defendants act is still punishable under Article 21 of the Civil Code which states 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. The defendant acted contrary to Article 21 because he was reckless and oppressive in calling the wedding off days before even if everything was already arranged for.

WASSMER VS VELEZ G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964 BENGZON, J.P., J.: FACTS: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided to get married and set Sept. 4, 1954 as the big day. On Sept. 2, 1954, Velez left a note for his bride-to-be saying that he wants to postpone the marriage as his mother opposes it and that he is leaving. But the next day, Sept. 3, he sent her a telegram and told her that nothing has changed, that he is returning and he apologizes. Thereafter, Velez did not appear nor was he heard from again. Wassmer sued him for damages. Velez filed no answer and was declared in default. ISSUE: Is the case at bar a mere breach of promise to marry? RULING: 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 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 Art. 21 of the NCC which 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." DECISION: Affirmed.