Beatriz Wassmer sued Francisco Velez for breach of promise to marry after they applied for a marriage license and incurred costs for their wedding. Velez failed to appear for the wedding and could not be found. Under Philippine law, breaking a promise to marry after formal wedding preparations were made is a breach of good customs and the party jilted can recover money or property advanced in reliance on the promise to marry.
The Gonzalo v. Tarnate case involved a subcontract between Gonzalo and Tarnate to supply materials for a DPWH road project that Gonzalo was awarded. Gonzalo later assigned a portion of the retention fee to Tarnate. The subcontract and assignment were void under
Original Description:
DIGESTED CASES
Original Title
ART 19 and 22-23 Wassmer vs Velez Gonzalo vs Tarnate.docx
Beatriz Wassmer sued Francisco Velez for breach of promise to marry after they applied for a marriage license and incurred costs for their wedding. Velez failed to appear for the wedding and could not be found. Under Philippine law, breaking a promise to marry after formal wedding preparations were made is a breach of good customs and the party jilted can recover money or property advanced in reliance on the promise to marry.
The Gonzalo v. Tarnate case involved a subcontract between Gonzalo and Tarnate to supply materials for a DPWH road project that Gonzalo was awarded. Gonzalo later assigned a portion of the retention fee to Tarnate. The subcontract and assignment were void under
Beatriz Wassmer sued Francisco Velez for breach of promise to marry after they applied for a marriage license and incurred costs for their wedding. Velez failed to appear for the wedding and could not be found. Under Philippine law, breaking a promise to marry after formal wedding preparations were made is a breach of good customs and the party jilted can recover money or property advanced in reliance on the promise to marry.
The Gonzalo v. Tarnate case involved a subcontract between Gonzalo and Tarnate to supply materials for a DPWH road project that Gonzalo was awarded. Gonzalo later assigned a portion of the retention fee to Tarnate. The subcontract and assignment were void under
Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer following A mere breach of promise to pay is not an their mutual love decided to get married on actionable wrong. September 4, 1954 To formally set a wedding, go through necessary September 2, 1954, Francisco left a note for procedures, only to walk out of it when the Beatriz to postpone their mother because his matrimony is about to solemnize is palpable and mother opposes it. Velez did not appear nor justifiable to good customs which holds liability was he heard again. in accordance with Art, 21 of the NCC Records show that Wassmer and Velez applied If Expenses Are Actually Incurred for a marriage license and had already incurred In this case, every necessary procedure in costs for their supposed wedding having a wedding is already done, meaning they Beatriz sued Velez and Velez failed to answer already incurred costs. Velez running from the and was declared default by the court. wedding gives Wassmer the right to recover money or property advanced by her upon the faith of such promise to marry. ART. 22-23 UNJUST ENRICHMENT CASE FACTS APPLICATION OF LAW GONZALO v TARNATE After DPWH awarded the contract of Pari Delicto improvement of the Sadsadan-Maba-ay-Section -According to Article 1412 (1) of the Civil Code, the of the Mt. Province Road on July 22, 1997 to the petitioner Gonzalo, the petitioner entered into a guilty parties to an illegal contract cannot recover from subcontract with respondent Tarnate (JNT one another and are not entitled to an affirmative relief Aggregates) to supply materials and labor for because they are in pari delicto or in equal fault. the project. The doctrine of in pari delicto is a universal doctrine that Their agreement stipulated that Tarnate would pay Gonzalo 8% and 4% of the contract price. holds that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an April 6, 1999 Gonzalo executed a deed of illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific assignment, assigning Tarnate 10% retention performance, or to recover the property agreed to be fee for Tarante’s equipment that has been utilized in the project. Also included in the deed sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or is the authorization of Gonzalo for Tarnate to damages for its violation; and where the parties use his company’s receipt in processing the are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will documents relative to the collection of the 10% retention fee and encashing the check to be be given to one against the other. issued by the DPWH Nonetheless, the application of the doctrine of in pari During the processing of the documents, delicto is not always rigid. An accepted exception arises Tarnate learned that Gonzalo unilaterally rescinded the deed by means of affidavit of when its application contravenes well-established cancellation (04/19/1999) public policy. In this jurisdiction, public policy has been The disbursement voucher for the retention fee defined as “that principle of the law which holds that no of 10% was issued in the name of Gonzalo and the retention fee was released to him subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a Tarnate demanded the payment of retention tendency to be injurious to the public or against the fee from Gonzalo, but to no avail. public good.” The subcontract and Deed of Assignment between Gonzalo and Tarnate are void being contrary to law. Tarnate was allowed by the court to recover his retention fee as an exemption due to unjust enrichment. Contract is void - Every contractor is prohibited from subcontracting with or assigning to another person any contract or project that he has with DPWH unless the DPWH Secretary approved of such contract.