BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY

In Philippine Context:
Art. 19 21 and Art. 2176 of CC:
Art. 19 Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20 Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damages to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21 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.
Art. 2176 Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(Breach of Promise to Marry is a Quasi-Delict)

BASIS
Breach of Promise to Marry was based on the Heart Balm Statutes from the United
States Laws

Heart Balm Acts

Statutes that abrogate or restrict lawsuits brought by individuals who seek pecuniarydamages to salve th
eir broken hearts.
Heart balm actions are founded on the precept that the law disfavors any intrusion with themarital relation
ship or family ties. Such suits include actions for Breach of Marriage
Promise, alienation of affection, criminal conversation, and seduction.

Breach of Marriage Promise

Breach of promise actions are based on the theory that a promise made should be kept. Asubscription to
this principle, however, defeats the purpose of the engagement period prior tomarriage that is designed to
determine whether or not the couple is sufficiently compatible toget married. In certain situations, however
, one party might take advantage of the other, aswhere a woman becomes engaged to a man merely for t
he purpose of gaining access tosubstantial wealth. In such cases, breach of promise actions can be utiliz
ed to compensatethe individual who has been injured from such a relationship.
A number of states, however, have eliminated breach of marriage promise suits.
Note: Why is there no success in claiming damages for breach of promise to marry?

No source of obligation because marriage is purely voluntary and not compulsory. It should be
freely entered into without any threat.
People marry because of love, so it cannot be imposed and thus there is no legal basis of action.
In the olden days, women are seen as used as merchandise when their sweethearts abandon
them. Their chances of getting married after being rejected become slimmer. Marriage was the
only goal of women. Things are different now, especially since women can have careers. No more
pressure to marry.

Wassmer v. Velez (1964)

12 SCRA 648
Case under the topic of: Breach of Promise to Marry
Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love
decided to get married on September 4, 1954.
-

Two days before the wedding (mean everything about the wedding was already
set, as well as bridal showers and gifts) the groom Francisco Velez suddenly flew
to his home in Cagayan de Oro, leaving the bride, Beatriz Wassmer, only this
note: will have to postpone wedding my mother opposes it.
The next day (day before the wedding) he sent this message through telegram:
Nothing changed rest assured returning soon. But he never returned and was
never heard from again.
Beatriz sued Velez for damages and Velez failed to answer and was declared in
default. Judgment was rendered ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff P2.000
as actual damages P25,000 as moral and exemplary damages, P2,500 as
attorneys fees.

Issue:
Whether or not breach of promise to marry is actionable in this case.
Ruling:
Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But
formally set a wedding and go through all the necessary preparations and publicity and
only to walk out of it when matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This
is palpable and unjustifiable to good customs which holds liability in accordance with
Art. 21 on the New Civil Code.
When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under the same, moral and
exemplary damages may not be awarded when it is proven that the defendant
clearly acted in wanton, reckless and oppressive manner.

De Jesus v. Syquia (1933)

58 Phil 866
Case under the topic of: BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY
Facts:
-

Cesar Syquia courted Antonia De Jesus who was 20 years old. Amorous
relations resulted in De Jesus giving birth to a baby boy on June 17, 1931. They
lived together for one year until Antonia got pregnant again after which Cesar left
to marry another woman.
Cesar recognized his paternity of first child in writing with a letter to the priest and
uninterrupted possession of natural child status for one year.
Antonia files for action for damages for breach of promise and recognition of the
child.

Issue:
Whether or not Antonia de Jesus is entitled to damages for breach of promise to
marry and kids to paternal support.
Held:
-

Promise to marry not satisfactorily proved so the trial court was right in refusing
to grant De Jesus prayer. Also, action for breach of promise to marry has no
standing for civil law, apart from the right to recover money or property advanced
by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise. This case exhibits none of the
features necessary to maintain such action.
Antonia De Jesus only entitled to the support of the first child because of Cesars
prior recognition. No support for the second child because no proof of paternity or
recognition presented.