Eugenio vs Velez

Wassmer v Velez

FACTS:

FACTS: In 1954, Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez

arranged their marriage to be held on September 4 of
the same year. The bride-to-be has been devoted with
all the preparations for their wedding. However, two days
before their marriage, Paking left a note that they must
postpone the marriage for his mother was against it. A
day before their wedding, Paking wrote again that the
wedding shall push through. Worse, Paking did not show
up on their wedding day causing Wassmer to be publicly
humiliated.
The breach of promise to marry made by Velez
prompted Wassmer to file a civil suit against the former.
Velez never filed an answer, thus, awarding moral and
exemplary damages to Wassmer.
Velez appealed on the court and stated that he
failed to attend the wedding day because of fortuitous
events. He also insisted that he cannot be civilly liable
for there is no law that acts upon the breach of promise
to marry. He also contested the award of moral and
exemplary damages.

Vitaliana Vargas brothers and sisters unaware of the

formers death on August 28, 1988 filed a petition for
Habeas Corpus on September 27, 1988 before the RTC
of Misamis Oriental alleging that she was forcible taken
from her residence sometime in 1987 and was confined
by the herein petitioner, Tomas Eugenio in his palacial
residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. The court then
issued a writ of habeas corpus but petitioner refused to
surrender the Vitalianas body to the sheriff on the
ground that a corpse cannot be subjected to habeas
corpus proceedings. Vitaliana, 25 year old single, died
of heart failure due to toxemia of pregnancy in Eugenios
residence. The court ordered that the body should be
delivered to a funeral parlor for autopsy but Eugenio
assailed the lack of jurisdiction of the court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can claim custody
of the deceased.
HELD:
The court held that the custody of the dead body of
Vitaliana was correctly awarded to the surviving brothers
and sisters pursuant to Section 1103 of the Revised
Administrative Code which provides:
Persons charged with duty of burial- if the deceased
was an unmarried man or woman or a child and left any
kin; the duty of the burial shall devolve upon the nearest
kin of the deceased.
Albeit, petitioner claims he is the spouse as
contemplated under Art. 294 of the Civil Code, Philippine
law does not recognize common law marriages where a
man and a woman not legally married who cohabit for
many years as husband and wife, who represent
themselves to the public as husband and wife, and who
are reputed to be husband and wife in the community
where they live may be considered legally mauled in
common law jurisdictions. In addition, it requires that
the man and woman living together must not in any way
be incapacitated to contract marriage. Whereas, the
petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another
woman, legal impediment that disqualified him from even
legally marrying Vitaliana.

ISSUE: Whether or not moral or exemplary damages

may be awarded in a breach of promise to marry suit.
HELD: A mere breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong. Howver, Wassmer has already made
preparations for the wedding. Velezs failure to appear
on the wedding day is contrary to morals, good customs
and public policy which is embodied on Article 21 of the
Civil Code. Under the law, the injured party is entitled to
moral damages as well as to exemplary damages
because Velezs acted in wanton, reckless and
oppressive manner (Article 2232) in breaching his
promise to marry Wassmer.

Cosca vs. Palaypayon

FACTS:
The following are the complainants: Juvy N. Cosca
(Stenographer 1), Edmundo B. Peralta (Interpreter 1),
Ramon C. Sambo (Clerk II) and Apollo Villamora
(Process Server). Respondents are Judge Lucio
Palaypayon Jr., the presiding judge, and Nelia B.
Esmeralda-Baroy, clerk of court II. All work in MTCTinambac, Camarines Sur.
Complainants alleged that Palaypayon solemnized
marriages even without the requisite of a marriage
license. Hence, the following couples were able to get
married just by paying the marriage fees to respondent
Baroy: Alano P. Abellano & Nelly Edralin; Francisco
Selpo & Julieta Carrido; Eddie Terrobias & Maria Gacer;
Renato Gamay & Maricris Belga; Arsenio Sabater &
Margarita Nacario; Sammy Bocaya & Gina Bismonte.
As a consequence, the marriage contracts of the
following couples did not reflect any marriage license
number. In addition, Palaypayon did not sign the
marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of
solemnization reasoning out that he allegedly had to wait
for the marriage license to be submitted by the parties
which happens usually several days after the marriage
ceremony.
Palaypayon contends that marriage between Abellano &
Edralin falls under Article 34 of the Civil Code thus
exempted from the marriage license requirement.
According to him, he gave strict instructions to
complainant Sambo to furnish the couple copy of the
marriage contract and to file the same with the civil
registrar but the latter failed to do so. In order to solve
the problem, the spouses subsequently formalized the
marriage by securing a marriage license and executing
their marriage contract, a copy of which was then filed
with the civil registrar. The other five marriages were not
illegally solemnized because Palaypayon did not sign
their marriage contracts and the date and place of
marriage are not included. It was alleged that copies of
these marriage contracts are in the custody of
complainant Sambo. The alleged marriage of Selpo &
Carrido, Terrobias & Gacer, Gamay & Belga, Sabater &
Nacario were not celebrated by him since he refused to
solemnize them in the absence of a marriage license
and that the marriage of Bocaya & Bismonte was
celebrated even without the requisite license due to the
insistence of the parties to avoid embarrassment with
the guests which he again did not sign the marriage
contract.

An illegal solemnization of marriage was charged

against the respondents.
ISSUE: Whether the marriage solemnized by Judge
Palaypayon were valid.

HELD:
Bocaya & Besmontes marriage was solemnized without
a marriage license along with the other couples. The
testimonies of Bocay and Pompeo Ariola including the
photographs taken showed that it was really Judge
Palaypayon who solemnized their marriage. Bocaya
declared that they were advised by judge to return after
10 days after the solemnization and bring with them their
marriage license. They already started living together as
husband and wife even without the formal requisite.
With respect to the photographs, judge explained that it
was a simulated solemnization of marriage and not a
real one. However, considering that there were pictures
from the start of the wedding ceremony up to the signing
of the marriage certificates in front of him. The court
held that it is hard to believe that it was simulated.
On the other hand, Judge Palaypayon admitted that he
solemnized marriage between Abellano & Edralin and
claimed it was under Article 34 of the Civil Code so the
marriage license was dispensed with considering that
the contracting parties executed a joint affidavit that they
have been living together as husband and wife for
almost 6 years already. However, it was shown in the
marriage contract that Abellano was only 18 yrs 2months
and 7 days old. If he and Edralin had been living
together for 6 years already before they got married as
what is stated in the joint affidavit, Abellano must have
been less than 13 years old when they started living
together which is hard to believe. Palaypayon should
have been aware, as it is his duty to ascertain the
qualification of the contracting parties who might have
executed a false joint affidavit in order to avoid the
marriage license requirement.
Article 4 of the Family Code pertinently provides that in
the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites
shall render the marriage void ab initio whereas an
irregularity in the formal requisite shall not affect the
validity of the marriage but the party or parties
responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally,
and administratively liable.