Wassmer vs. Velez
BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. 20089
December 26, 1964
FACTS:
Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez decided to get married and set the date on September 4, 1954. Preparations were made including the following: obtaining a marriage license;; printing and distribution of invitations to relatives, friends, and acquaintances;; purchasing the bride-to-be’s trousseau;; preparing the dresses of those who are part of the entourage;; and buying a matrimonial bed and its accessories, among others. Bridal showers were given and gifts were also received.
On September 2 or two days before the wedding, Velez went to his home city in Mindanao and left a note for Wassmer postponing the wedding saying that his mother opposes it. The next day, September 3, he sent her a telegram saying that nothing has changed and assuring her of his return soon. Thereafter, Velez was never heard from again.
Wassmer sued Velez for damages and won the suit by default. Almost two months later, Velez filed a petition for relief from orders, judgment, and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration. Velez lost in his petition so he elevated the same to the Supreme Court. He argues that there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry.
ISSUE:
May a person be held liable even in the absence of a provision authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry?
HELD:
Yes. Although mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, it must not be overlooked, that the extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless. Article 21 provides that “any person who willfully 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 this case, 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. Therefore, Velez should be held liable.
HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.
HELLO!For attribution or removal, contact us.