MANUEL V.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR NO. 165259, NOVEMBER 19,2005

Facts:
On 28 July 1975, petitioner Eduardo P. Manuel (Manuel) married Rubylus Gaña (Gaña) who was, according to
the petitioner, charged with estafa in the same year and was imprisoned. He visited her in jail after three months and
never saw her again. On January 1996, Manuel met Tina Gandalera (Gandalera) who was a 21-year old Computer
Secretariat student in Dagupan City. She was looking for a friend during her 2 days stay. Afterwards, Eduardo went to
Baguio City to visit her. Eventually, as one thing led to another, they went to a motel where, despite Gandalera’s
resistance, Manuel succeeded in having his way with her. Manuel proposed marriage on several occasions, assuring
her that he was single and even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Gandalera’s parents, and was assured by
them that their son was still single.
On 22 April 1996, they were married. It appeared in their marriage contract that Manuel was ‘single.’
However, starting 1999, Manuel started making himself scarce and went to their house only twice or thrice a year.
Gandalera was jobless, and whenever she asked money from Manuel, he would slap her. On January 2001, Manuel
took all his clothes, left, and did not return. Worse, he stopped giving financial support.
On August 2001, Gandalera became curious and made inquiries from the National Statistics Office (NSO) in
Manila. She learned that Manuel had been previously married. Manuel testified that he met Gandalera sometime in
1995 in a bar where she worked as a GRO. He fell in love with her and married her. He informed her of his previous
marriage to Gaña, but she nevertheless agreed to marry him. Their marital relationship was in order until this one
time when he noticed that she had a “love-bite” on her neck. He then abandoned her. He further testified that he
declared he was “single” in his marriage contract with Gandalera because he believed in good faith that his first
marriage was invalid. He did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage
before marrying again. He insisted that he married Gandalera believing that his first marriage was no longer valid
because he had not heard from Gaña for more than 20 years.
RTC Ruling: Petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of from 6 years and 10 months, as minimum, to 10 years, as maximum and P200,000.00 by way of moral
damages, plus costs of suit.
CA Ruling: Affirming the decision of the RTC stating that Article 41 of the Family Code should apply that
there should have been a judicial declaration of Gaña’s presumptive death as the absent spouse and modified
minimum to 2 years and four months.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the lower court’s decision in awarding a moral damage when it has no
basis in fact and in law

Ruling:
Article 20 provides that "every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to
another shall indemnify the latter for the same."
In the case, the petitioner courted the private complainant and proposed to marry her. He assured her that he
was single. He even brought his parents to the house of the private complainant where he and his parents made the
same assurance – that he was single. Thus, the private complainant agreed to marry the petitioner, who even stated
in the certificate of marriage that he was single. She lived with the petitioner and dutifully performed her duties as his
wife, believing all the while that he was her lawful husband. For two years or so until the petitioner heartlessly
abandoned her, the private complainant had no inkling that he was already married to another before they were
married.
The Court rules that the Manuel’s collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and after his marriage with
Gandalera were willful, deliberate and with malice and caused injury to the latter. That she did not sustain any
physical injuries is not a bar to an award for moral damages. The Court thus declares that the petitioner’s acts are
against public policy as they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution, good morals and the interest
and general welfare of society.
Considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the Court finds the award of ₱200,000.00 for moral
damages to be just and reasonable.
EX MALEFICIO.
Growing out of, or founded upon, misdoing or tort. This term is frequently used in the civil law as the synonym of “ex
delicto.”

*Obligatio ex delicto is a Latin term which means “tortuous obligation.” It means an obligation originating from a
wrongful conduct against the person or property of another. It is an obligation enforceable in law. It is also termed as
obligatio ex maleficio.

Cecilio Pe, et. al., plaintiffs-appellants vs. Alfonso Pe, defendant-appellee

G.R. No. L-17396, May 30, 1962

Facts:
Alfonso Pe, an adopted child of a Chinese man named Pe Beco, is a married man. He used to stay in the town
of Gasan, Marinduque. Lolita Pe is 24-year old unmarried woman living with parents residing in the same town.
Alfonso became close to the family of Lolita and he is considered as a member of their family. Alfonso and Lolita
eventually fell in love with each other but they kept it a secret because Alfonso is married hence their act is illegal.
Their affection for each other is evident whenever Alfonso would come to Lolita’s home to learn rosary. They kept their
secret even in the town of Boac where Lolita used to teach. However, the rumors about their love affairs reached the
ears of Lolita’s parents sometime in 1995, and since then, Alfonso was forbidden from going to their house and from
further seeing Lolita. The family of Lolita even filed for deportation against Alfonso. The affair of the two continued
nonetheless.
On April 14 1957, Lolita disappeared from their house in Quezon City. Her siblings found a note inside Lolita’s
aparador. The note was written by Alfonso.

The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the police authorities and the NBI but up to the present there is
no news or trace of her whereabouts.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the facts alleged, even if true, constitute a valid cause of action

RULING:

Yes. Alfonso is liable to the damages incurred to Lolita’s family. It was him who seduced Lolita to the extent of
making her fall in love with him. This is evident in the manner of how he showed his affections towards her.

Alfonso not only deliberately, but through a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affection and love of
Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed
immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. He committed an injury to Lolita’s family in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as enshrined in Article 21 of the New Civil Code.

"Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner which is contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."

A cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the
enforcement of a right against another party.

Elements of CONTRA BONOS MORES (any act or omission not contrary to law but CONTRARY TO MORALS, GOOD
CUSTOMS AND PUBLIC POLICY)
1. There must be an act which is legal;
2. The act must be contrary to morals, good customs, public order or public policy; and
3. The act is done willfully and intent to injure
 NATIVIDAD vs. TUNAC
G.R. No. 143130, July 10, 2000

Facts:

Petitioner Elsa Natividad and respondent Ronald Tunac grew up together in Barangay Quiling, Talisay,
Batangas where their respective parents resided. At age nineteen (19), the two became lovers. One day, Ronald asked
Elsa to go with him to his boarding house in Pasig City to get the bio-data which he needed in connection with his
application for employment. Upon arrival at the boarding house, they found no one there. Ronald asked Elsa to go
with him inside his room and, once inside, started kissing Elsa until he succeeded in making love with her. Elsa cried
at the loss of her virginity, but Ronald appeased her by promising to marry her. Their intimate relations continued,
resulting in Elsa getting pregnant sometime in June 1992. Ronald reassured her, again promising her marriage. True
enough, on October 31, 1992, Ronald and his parents, accompanied by several relatives numbering twenty in all, went
to Elsa's house and asked her parents for the hand of their daughter.The two families agreed to have the wedding in
January 1993 but Elsa's sister had gotten married that year so they postponed it. Meanwhile, Elsa started living with
Ronald in the house of the latter's family while waiting for the baby to be born. Unfortunately, on December 19, 1992,
Elsa gave birth to a premature baby which died after five (5) hours in the incubator. After Elsa's discharge from the
hospital, the two families decided that Elsa should go back to her parents so her mother could take care of her during
her postnatal period. During said period, Ronald occasionally slept in Elsa's house. It seems that after Elsa's
miscarriage, a marked change in Ronald's attitude towards the former occurred. In January of 1993, the Natividads
confronted the Tunacs. In that meeting, Ronald informed Elsa that he no longer wanted to get married to her.
Petitioners succinctly contend they are suing respondents not merely because Elsa became pregnant but because
Ronald reneged on his promise to marry her after their agreement had already been much publicized in their town.

Issue:

Whether or not Ronald performs moral seduction.

Ruling:

In the case at bar, it is clear that no moral seduction was employed by Ronald, much less by his parents. Form
the narration of the trial court, the evident conclusion is that the two became lovers before they engaged in any
sexual intercourse. Also, the moral seduction contemplated by the Code Commission in drafting Article 21 of the Civil
Code is one where the defendant is in a position of moral ascendancy in relation to the plaintiff. We fail to see any of
these circumstances in this case. In addition, as the trial court noted, marriage plans were in fact arranged between
the families of the parties. That their relationship turned sour afterwards, or immediately after Elsa's miscarriage, is
already beyond the punitive scope of our laws. This is simply a case of a relationship gone awry. For the foregoing
reasons, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
 FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et.al., Respondents.
G.R. No. L-14628. September 30, 1960

FACTS:
The complainant Soledad Cagigas is thirty six years old, a former high school teacher and a life insurance agent.
The petitioner Francisco Hermosisima is ten years younger than complainant, and an apprentice pilot. Intimacy
developed between them and thus in 1953 after coming from the movies, they had sexual intercourse in his cabin. In
February 1954, the woman advised the man that she is pregnant whereupon the man promised to marry her. Their
daughter Chris Hermosisima was born June 1954 in a private clinic. However, subsequently the man married Romanita
Perez. Hence, Soledad filed a complaint against Francisco for acknowledgement of her child as a natural child of the
petitioner, as well as for support of said child and moral damages for alleged breach of promise to marry. The Court of
First Instance (CFI) declared the child a natural daughter of the defendant, ordered Francisco to support the child by
giving a monthly alimony, awarded actual damages and moral damages. On appeal of the petitioner, the CA affirmed
the assailed decision however increased the amount for actual and moral damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not moral damages are recoverable, under our laws, for breach of promise to marry.
RULING:
No. Award for moral damage is not recoverable, under our laws, for breach of promise to pay.
In De Jesus vs. Syquia, the Court ruled that "the action for breach of promises to marry has no standing in the civil law,
apart from the right to recover money or property advanced . . . upon the faith of such promise".
Article 337 and 338 of the Revised Penal Code on “seduction” does not apply in the present case. It cannot be said that
the petitioner is morally guilty of seduction, since not only that he is approximately ten (10) years younger than the
complainant, but also, the CFI found that, complainant "surrendered herself" to petitioner because, "overwhelmed by
her love" for him, she "wanted to bind" "by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of
clergy."
The Supreme Court eliminates the award for moral damages and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals.
 G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964
BEATRIZ P. WASSMER vs. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ

FACTS:
The record reveals that on August 23, 1954 Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer 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. Judgment was rendered ordering
defendant to pay plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual damages; P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; P2,500.00 as
attorney's fees; and the costs. On June 21, 1955 Velez filed a "petition for relief from orders, judgment and
proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration." Ordered the parties and their attorneys to appear before it
on August 23, 1955 "to explore at this stage of the proceedings the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement."
It added that should any of them fail to appear "the petition for relief and the opposition thereto will be deemed
submitted for resolution."
However, Velez failed to appear before court. Instead, on the following day his counsel filed a motion to defer for two
weeks the resolution on defendants’ petition for relief. The counsel stated that he would confer with defendant in
Cagayan de Oro City, the latter's residence, on the possibility of an amicable element. The court granted two weeks
counted, but Velez and his counsel had failed to appear. Another chance for amicable settlement was given by the
court calling the parties and their attorneys to appear on July 13, 1956. The court issued an order denying defendant's
aforesaid petition. Defendant has appealed to this Court. In his petition in the court a quo defendant alleged excusable
negligence as ground to set aside the judgment by default. In support of his "motion for new trial and
reconsideration," defendant asserts that the judgment is contrary to law that there is no provision of the Civil Code
authorizing" an action for breach of promise to marry.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Velez is liable for a breach of promise to marry Beatriz.

RULING:
Yes, Velez is liable. 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. It must not be overlooked, however, that the extent to which acts not contrary to law may
be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless for Article 21.
Under the 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, Velez violated Article 2232 of the New Civil Code, he clearly
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. The Court then awarded P15,000.00 as
moral and exemplary damages.