Beatriz P. Wassmer, plaintiff-appelle, vs Francisco X.

Velez, defendant-appellant
Facts:
1. Velez and Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided to set their marriage
on 4 September 1954.
2. On 2 September 1954, Velez left Wassmer and never returned.
3. Wassmer sued Velez for damages and obtained a judgment ordering Velez to pay Wassmer
2000 pesos as actual damages; 25000 as moral and exemplary damages, 2500 pesos as
attorney’s fees and the costs.
4. In 1955, Velez filed a petition for reconsideration. The Court ordered both parties to appear
before 23 August 1955 to explore the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement.
5. Velez twice failed to appear before the Court hence the Court denied his petition
6. Velez, however, in his motion for new trial and reconsideration, asserts that the previous
judgment is contrary to law on the ground that “there is no provision of the Civil Code
authorizing" an action for breach of promise to marry.”
7. The Court, in its previous rulings, indeed held that a promise to marry is not an actionable
wrong.
Issue: Whether or not the breach of promise to marry which is not an actionable wrong can be
sued for moral and material damages?
Held:
Yes.
1. Article 21 of NCC provides that
“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 then damage.”

The record reveals that on 23 August, 1954 the parties applied for license to contract
marriage, which was subsequently issued. Their wedding was set on 4 September and
invitations were already printed and distributed to family and friends. The bride-to- be's
trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased.
Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed,
with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and gifts received.

As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally
set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only
to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This
is palpably and unjustiably contrary to good customs, for which defendant must be held
answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21