Wassmer vs.

Velez
G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964
12 SCRA 648
Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a Marriage License on Aug
ust 23, 1954. The wedding was to take place on September 4, 1954. All the necess
ary preparations were undertaken for the said event. However, two days before th
e wedding, Francisco left a note for Beatriz informing her that the wedding will
not push through because his mother opposed the union. The following day, he se
nt her a telegram stating that he will be returning very soon. Francisco never s
howed up and has not been heard since then. Beatriz subsequently sued Francisco
for damages. The trial court ordered Francisco to pay Beatriz actual, moral and
exemplary damages.
Francisco filed a petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and
motion for new trial and reconsideration which was denied by the trial court. Fr
ancisco appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary t
o law as there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breac
h of promise to marry.
Issue: May Francisco be held liable to pay Beatriz damages for breach of promise
to marry?
Held: Yes. Francisco may be held liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code, whic
h provides: "Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manne
r that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage."
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. Surely this
is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. This is palpably and unjustif
iably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in da
mages in accordance with Article 21.
-----------------------

PERSONS Case Digest on Wassmer vs Velez:Facts:Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassme
r are to be wed because of their mutual promise of love witheach other on Septem
ber 4,1952. Francisco left for Cagayan De Oro two days before thewedding,leaving
her a note that the weddings postponed because his mother opposes it. The day
before the wedding, he sent a telegram stating that he will comeback for the wed
ding but he never did.Beatriz filed for damages, and judgment was rendered order
ing defendant to pay actual(P2,000.00),moral(P25,000.00) and exemplary(P2,500.00
) damages. Defendant now asserts that the judgmentagainst him is contrary to law
, given that there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action forbr
each of promise to marry.Issue: Whether or not breach of promise to marry is act
ionable.Held: No it is not actionable for there is no provision in the Civil Cod
e but the case is not a mere breachof promise to marry. Francisco must still be
punished for the damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil Code.Ratio:
The SC perpetuated that though breach of promise to marry is not actionable beca
use there is noprovision in the Civil Code
, the defendants act is still punishable under Article 21 of the Civil Code which
states t
hat any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary tomorals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter fo
r the damage.
The defendantacted contrary to Article 21 because he was reckless and oppressive
in calling the wedding off daysbefore even if everything was already arranged f
or.