SHERA MAE ASHLEY C.

BARBA
JD-1

[ G.R. No. 214016. November 24, 2021 ]

JHONNA GUEVARRA ET AL., PETITIONER, VS. JAN BANACH, RESPONDENT

FACTS:

German national Jan Banach met Jhonna Guevarra through a certain pastor
named Jun Millamina. Banach proceeded to court Guevarra, paying her visits,offering
her presents, and ultimately declaring his intention to wed her. However, he kept this
information from Guevarra, as he was still wed to his third wife at the time. Rather,
he disclosed to her that he was no longer married. Additionally, he hid his genuine
identity and gave Guevarra's family the impression that he was Roger Brawner. After
the two decided to get married, Banach sent Guevarra P500,000.00 to purchase a
property for their conjugal home. However, Guevarra ended their relationship after
learning of Banach's deceit and lies. This led Banach to file a lawsuit for damages
against both Guevarra and her parents in the Regional Trial Court.13 whereas Banach
based his claim on the Civil Code's human relations provisions, specifically Articles 20,
21, and 22. Guevarra contended that the money that Banach gave her were a gift and
the return of which was not actionable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the order to return the P500,000.00 is proper for the breach of
promise to marry.

RULING:

No, the order to return the P500,000.00 is not proper as long as it does not
manifestly and unjustifiably go against good customs, a simple breach of a promise to
marry is not actionable. In any event, the person requesting damages must have acted
in good faith.

OPINION:

A breach of promise to marry is not actionable under our laws. The Court of
Appeals initially established this theory in the case of Hermosisima v. Court of
Appeals, noting that the Spanish Civil Code of 1889's provisions permitting lawsuits for
breach of promise to marry had been removed from the New Civil Code. Hermosisima
interpreted the omission to imply that the violation is no longer considered a legally
punishable offense. However, the Court permitted the recovery of damages as a
result of a canceled marriage in Wassmer v. Velez. This position was reaffirmed in
Estopa v. Piansay and Baksh v. Court of Appeals. Wassmer did not depart from the
doctrine that a mere breach of promise to marry is not actionable wrong. The award
in Wassmer was not based on the breach of promise to marry, but on Article 21 of the
New Civil Code.In this instance, the petitioner ended the engagement after learning
of the respondent's lies and deception. Respondent's acts were contaminated with
deception and deceit. The respondent concealed his real name from the petitioner
and lied about being married. These actions are sufficient to support calling off the
wedding. It is sufficient evidence of bad faith. Under the New Civil Code the
respondent is not entitled to damages since he did not act in good faith. Article 2250,
unjust enrichment principle only comes into play when property is obtained illegally.
In this case, respondent gave petitioner a gift of P500,000.00 to assist her and her
family in the event that they were forced to leave their house. The petitioner is right
when she states that she cannot be forced to return the P500,000.00 that was given
to her because it was a gift.