Gashem Shookat Baksh vs.

CA
G.R. No. 97336, 19 February 1993

FACTS:
In August 1986, while working as a waitress in Dagupan City, Pangasinan,
Marilou Gonzales, then 21 years old, met Gashem Shookat Baksh, a 29 year old
exchange student from Iran who was studying medicine in Dagupan. The two got really
close and intimate. On Marilous account, she said that Gashem later offered to marry
her at the end of the semester. Marilou then introduced Gashem to her parents where
they expressed their intention to get married. Marilous parents then started inviting
sponsors and relatives to the wedding. Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem
in his apartment where they had sexual intercourse. But in no time, their relationship
went sour as Gashem began maltreating Marilou. Gashem eventually revoked his
promise of marrying Marilou and he told her that he is already married to someone in
Bacolod City. Marilou went home and later sued Gashem for damages. The trial court
ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in moral damages. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the trial court. On appeal, Gashem averred that he never
proposed marriage to Marilou and that he cannot be adjudged to have violated Filipino
customs and traditions since he, being an Iranian, was not familiar with Filipino customs
and traditions.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.

HELD:
Yes. Gashem is liable to pay for damages in favor of Marilou not really because of
his breach of promise to marry her but based on Article 21 of the Civil Code which
provides: 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. Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is
the deceit and fraud employed by Gashem that constitutes a violation of Article 21 of
the Civil Code. Gashems blatant disregard of Filipino traditions on marriage and on the
reputation of Filipinas is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy. The
Supreme Court also elucidated that Article 21 was meant to expand the concepts of
torts and quasi delict. It is meant to cover situations such as this case where the breach
complained of is not strictly covered by existing laws. It was meant as a legal remedy for
the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to
specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books such as the absence of a law
penalizing a the breach of promise to marry.