Gashem Shookat Baksh v.

Court of Appeals
GR No. 97336. February 19, 1993.

Statement of the case:

This is a civil case where a woman seeks to recover damages from the man who

did not fulfill his promise to marry her.

Statement of the facts:

Private respondent Marilou Gonzales, a 22-year-old single Filipina, was courted

by petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh, an Iranian citizen. The latter proposed to marry

her and she accepted his love provided that they would get married. They set the date

of the wedding in October 1987, which is after the end of the school semester. Baksh

also visited Gonzales’ parents in Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage.

They gave their blessing.

In August, petitioner asked respondent to live with him in his apartment; she

agreed with her parents’ consent. She was a virgin before she lived with him. A week

before the filing of the complaint, petitioner started maltreating her. He tied her hands

and feet while he went to school, gave threats to kill her, and gave her a medicine that

induced her to sleep the whole day until the following day. He also impregnated her

then administered a drug to abort the baby.

The private respondent sustained injuries with petitioner’s maltreatment, causing

her to report the abuse to the authorities. During the confrontation with the

representative of the barangay captain, Baksh said that he will not marry Marilou

because he is already married to a girl in Bacolod City.

Issue:

Is breach of promise to marry a ground for claiming damages?

Court ruling:

No. The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an

actionable wrong. Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the New Civil

Code the provisions that would have made it so, because no other action lends itself

more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men.

However, the said Code contains a provision, Article 21, which is designed to

grant legal remedy for the untold numbers of moral wrongs which is impossible for

human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in statute books. Article 21 of

the Civil Code of the Philippines provides “Any person who willfully causes loss or

injury to another in any manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public

policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

Applying Article 21 in this case, the Supreme Court held that the respondent can

claim moral damages because she was a virgin and never had a boyfriend prior to

Baksh. Marilou was, as described by the lower court, a barrio lass not used and

accustomed to the trend of modern urban life, and certainly would not have allowed to

have sexual relations with the defendant if there was no persuasive promise made by

the defendant to marry her. The promise to marry was used by petitioner as a tool to

deceive respondent into surrendering her virginity and satisfying his lust. The same

promise is the proximate cause for the intercourse; not due to mutual lust. The Court

ruled this fraudulent and deceptive promise as an injury against Marilou, and is
contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy. Marilou Gonzales can claim

compensation for the damage of this civil wrong made by Gashem Shookat Baksh.