GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH vs.

CA 219 SCRA 115

GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T.
GONZALES, respondents. 219 SCRA 115
FACTS: Private respondent Marilou Gonzales filed a complaint for damages against
Gasheem Shookat, an Iranian Citizen, of breach of promise to marry. She said that
both of them agreed to marry after the end of the school semester and the petitioner
asked the approval of her parents. She stated that the petitioner forced to live with
him in his apartments. Respondent was a virgin before she was forced to live with the
Iranian (petitioner). A week before she filed her complaint, petitioner maltreated,
assaulted and asked not to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already
married to someone living in Bacolod City.
On the petitioners counterclaim, he said that he never proposed marriage
with the private respondent; he neither forced her to live with him and he did not
maltreat her but only told her to stop from coming into his apartment because he
discovered that she had deceived him by stealing his money and passport. He
insisted that he must be awarded for damages for he suffered mental anxiety and a
besmirched reputation due to the complaint of the private respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is to be held liable for damages for breach of
promise to marry.
HELD: A breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. This court
held that where a mans promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the
acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise
thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself in a sexual congress,
proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was
only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and
to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant
to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of fraud and deceit
and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. Such act
done by the petitioner is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws of the country. The
court ordered that the petition be denied with costs against the petitioner.
Quimiguing vs Icao
TITLE: Quimiguing vs Icao
CITATION: 34 SCRA 132
FACTS:
Carmen Quimiguing, the petitioner, and Felix Icao, the defendant, were neighbors in
Dapitan City and had close and confidential relations. Despite the fact that Icao was
married, he succeeded to have carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times under
force and intimidation and without her consent. As a result, Carmen became
pregnant despite drugs supplied by defendant and as a consequence, Carmen
stopped studying. Plaintiff claimed for support at P120 per month, damages and
attorneys fees. The complaint was dismissed by the lower court in Zamboanga del
Norte on the ground lack of cause of action. Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint
that as a result of the intercourse, she gave birth to a baby girl but the court ruled
that no amendment was allowable since the original complaint averred no cause of

action.
ISSUE: Whether plaintiff has a right to claim damages.
HELD:
Supreme Court held that a conceive child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a
provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided
in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The conceive child may also receive
donations and be accepted by those persons who will legally represent them if they
were already born as prescribed in Article 742.
Lower courts theory on article 291 of the civil code declaring that support is an
obligation of parents and illegitimate children does not contemplate support to
children as yet unborn violates article 40 aforementioned.
Another reason for reversal of the order is that Icao being a married man forced a
woman not his wife to yield to his lust and this constitutes a clear violation of
Carmens rights. Thus, she is entitled to claim compensation for the damage caused.
WHEREFORE, the orders under appeal are reversed and set aside. Let the case be
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings conformable to this decision.
Costs against appellee Felix Icao. So ordered.