Wassmer vs.

Velez
Case Digest
G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964
12 SCRA 648

Wassmer vs. Velez

Case Digest
G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964
12 SCRA 648

Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a Marriage

License on August 23, 1954. The wedding was to take place on
September 4, 1954. All the necessary preparations were
undertaken for the said event. However, two days before the
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 sent her a telegram stating that he will
be returning very soon. Francisco never showed 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.

Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a Marriage

License on August 23, 1954. The wedding was to take place on
September 4, 1954. All the necessary preparations were
undertaken for the said event. However, two days before the
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 sent her a telegram stating that he will
be returning very soon. Francisco never showed 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. Francisco appealed to the Supreme
Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law, as there is no
provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of
promise to marry.

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. Francisco appealed to the Supreme
Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law, as there is no
provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of
promise to marry.

Issue: May Francisco be held liable to pay Beatriz damages for

breach 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, which provides: "Any person who willfully 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."

Held: Yes. Francisco may be held liable under Article 21 of the Civil
Code, which provides: "Any person who willfully 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."

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 unjustifiably
contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held
answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.

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 unjustifiably
contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held
answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.