GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES G.R. No.

97336 February 19, 1993/ DAVIDE, JR., J.: Facts: Private respondent filed with the CA a complaint for damages against the petitioner for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married. Petitioner claimed that he never proposed marriage to or agreed to be married with the private respondent. After trial on the merits, the lower court, applying Article 21 of the Civil Code, rendered a decision favoring the private respondent. The petitioner was thus ordered to pay the latter damages and attorney's fees. It is petitioner's thesis that said Article 21 is not applicable because he had not committed any moral wrong or injury or violated any good custom or public policy; he has not professed love or proposed marriage to the private respondent; and he has never maltreated her. Petitioner asserts that even if it was to be assumed arguendo that he had professed his love to the private respondent and had also promised to marry her, such acts would not be actionable in view of the special circumstances of the case. The mere breach of promise is not actionable. Issue: Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines? Held: Yes. The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. 17 Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the New Civil Code the provisions that would have made it so because such action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men. This notwithstanding, Article 21 of the NCC is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasidelict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books. Art. 23. 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 short, the private respondent surrendered her virginity, the cherished possession of every single Filipina, not because of lust but because of moral seduction the kind illustrated by the Code Commission in its example earlier adverted to. Prior decisions of this Court clearly suggest that Article 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction. G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962

CECILIO PE, ET AL., vs. ALFONSO PE, BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

FACTS: Alfonso Pe, the defendant, was a married man, agent of La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory in Gasan Marinduque who was treated like a son by Cecilio Pe, one of the petitioners. Cecilio introduced Alfonso to his children and was given access to visit their house. Alfonso got fond of Lolita, 24 year old single, daughter of Cecilio. The defendant frequented the house of Lolita sometime in 1952 on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Eventually they fell in love with each other. Sometime in April, 1957, Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence. Thereafter, Lolita disappeared from said house. After she left, her brothers and sisters checked up her thing and found that Lolita's clothes were gone. However, plaintiffs found a note on a crumpled piece of paper inside Lolita's aparador. Said note, written on a small slip of paper approximately 4" by 3" in size, was in a handwriting recognized to be that of defendant's. In English it reads: Honey, suppose I leave here on Sunday night, and that's 13th of this month and we will have a date on the 14th, that's Monday morning at 10 a.m. Reply Love 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.

Plaintiff brought action before lower court of Manila and failed to prove Alfonso deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolitas affection. The case on moral damages was dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether or not defendant is liable to Lolitas family on the ground of moral, good custom and public policy due to their illicit affair.

HELD: The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead, to any other conclusion than that it was he who, thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him. This is shown by the fact that defendant frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Because of the frequency of his visits to the latter's family who was allowed free access because

he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member of her family, the two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine love affairs not only in Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. When the rumors about their illicit affairs reached the knowledge of her parents, defendant was forbidden from going to their house and even from seeing Lolita. Plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings against defendant who is a Chinese national. Nevertheless, defendant continued his love affairs with Lolita until she disappeared from the parental home. Indeed, no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant 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. Verily, he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.