Wassmer vs.

Velez
G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964, Bengzon, J.P., J.

FACTS:
Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided to
get married and set September 4, 1954 as the big day. Wassmer made all the necessary
preparations and publicity to formally set their wedding. On September 2, 1954, Velez left a note
to Bet that they will have to postpone wedding for the reason that the former’s mother opposes it.
Velez also implore Bet to not ask too many people about it to avoid scandal. The next day, he
wired her saying that nothing changed, rest assured he will return very soon. Thereafter Velez did
not appear nor was he heard from again.

Wassmer sued Velez for damages as he failed to answer and was declared in default. On April 29,
1955, judgment came 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
appeal, Velez argued that his failure to attend the scheduled wedding was because of fortuitous
events. He further argued that he cannot be held civilly liable for breaching his promise to marry
Wassmer because there is no law upon which such an action may be grounded. He also contested
the award of exemplary and moral damages against him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an actionable wrong in this case.

HELD:
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 Article 21 which provides “any person who wilfully
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.”

In accordance with the law, any violation of Article 21 entitles the damaged party to receive an
award for moral damages as properly awarded by the lower court in this case. Further, the award
of exemplary damages is also proper. Here, the circumstances of this case show that Velez, in
breaching his promise to Wassmer, acted in wanton, reckless, and oppressive manner – this
warrants the imposition of exemplary damages against him.
 Hermosisima vs. Court Of Appeals, et al.
109 Phil. 629 / G.R. No. L-14628, September 30, 1960, Concepcion, J.

FACTS:
Complainant Soledad, was then a teacher in the in Cebu and Petitioner was almost 10 years
younger than former. They used to go around together and were regarded as engaged, although he
had made no promise of marriage prior thereto. One evening, in 1953, when after coming from
the movies, they had sexual intercourse in his cabin on board M/V "Escaño," to which he was
then attached as apprentice pilot. In February, 1954, Soledad advised petitioner that she was in
the family way, whereupon he promised to marry her. Their child, Chris Hermosisima, was born
on June 17, 1954, in a private maternity and clinic. However, subsequently, or on July 24, 1954,
defendant married one Romanita Perez.

Soledad Cagigas, on October 4, 1954, filed with court of first instance a complaint for the
acknowledgment of her child, Chris Hermosisima, as natural child of petitioner, as well as for
support of said child and moral damages for alleged breach of promise. Petitioner admitted the
paternity of child and expressed willingness to support the child, but denied having ever promised
to marry the complainant. The court ordered petitioner, on October 27, 1954, to pay, by way of
alimony pendente lite, P50 a month, which was, on February 16, 1955, reduced to P30 a month.
Sentencing defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of P4,500 for actual and compensatory damages;
the sum of P5,000 as moral damages; and the further sum of P500 as attorney's fees. Court of
Appeals sustained the decision.

ISSUE:
Whether moral damages are recoverable, under our laws, for breach of promise to marry.

HELD:
No. Court ruled in De Jesus vs. Syquia (58 Phil., 866), 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". United States and in England’s history of breach of
promise, has shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women
and unscrupulous men. It is this experience which has led to the abolition of rights of action in the
so-called Balm suits in many of the American States.