Wassmer vs.

Velez
No. L-20089 | December 26, 1964 | Bengzon, J.P., J.

Jonathan Dy-Liacco LAW100 Persons and Family Relations Group B2

FACTS

- Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer decided to get married. They applied for a license to
contract marriage, which was subsequently issued. They also set their wedding for September
4, 1954.
- Two days before the wedding, Velez, who was then 28 years old, simply left a note for
Wassmer staying, Will have to postpone wedding My mother opposes it. The next day, he
wrote Wassmer again, and this time, stating, Nothing changed rest assured returning very
soon.
- However, Velez never returned, and was never heard from again.
- With this, Wassmer sued for damages. Velez filed no answer, and was declared in default.
- Wassmer adduced evidence before the clerk of court as commissioner, and on April 29, 1955,
judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual damages;
P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; P2,500.00 as attorneys fees; and the costs.
- On June 21, 1955, Velez filed a petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and
motion for new trial and reconsideration.
- August 2, 1955: The court ordered the parties and their attorneys to appear before it on
August 23, 1955, to explore at this stage of the proceedings the possibility of arriving at an
amicable settlement. Should any of them fail to appear, the petition for relief and the
opposition thereto will be deemed submitted for resolution.
- August 23, 1955: Velez failed to appear before the court. The following day, his counsel filed a
motion to defer for two weeks the resolution on defendants petition for relief. The court
granted two weeks counted from August 25, 1955.
- September 8, 1955: Velez and his counsel failed to appear before the court.
- July 6, 1956: Another chance for amicable settlement was given by the court, calling the
parties to appear on July 13, 1956. The defendants counsel informed the court that chances of
settling the case amicably were nil.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not adducing the evidence before the clerk of court makes the judgment sought
to be null and void: No.

2. Whether or not the judgment is contrary to law, given that there is no provision of the Civil
Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry: No.
RATIONALE

1. In Province of Pangasinan vs. Palisoc, L-16519, October 30, 1962, the Supreme Court
pointed out that the procedure of designating the clerk of court as commissioner to receive
evidence is sanctioned by Rule 34 (which became Rule 38) of the Rules of Court.

2. The extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity is not
limitless, for Article 21 of the Civil Code provides that 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 damage.
This case is not merely a breach of promise to marry. 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. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs, for which defendant,
Francisco Velez, must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.

*The Courts opinion, however, is that considering the particular circumstances of this case,
P15,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages is deemed to be reasonable. With this
modification, the lower courts judgment was affirmed.