BEATRIZ WASSMER vs.

FRANCISCO VELEZ
No. L-20089
December 26, 1964

Bengzon, J.P., J.

FACTS: Respondent Francisco Velez and petitioner Beatriz

Wassmer were lovers who set their marriage for Sept. 4, 1954.
On Sept. 2, however, Francisco left for Cagayan de Oro, leaving
Beatriz with a note that his mother was approved to the
marriage. A day before the supposed wedding, on Sept. 3,
Francisco telegrammed Beatriz that nothing changed and that
he assured her of his return and love. Francisco did not appear
after all nor words were heard from him again; despite the fact
that preparations were all made. Beatriz sued Velez for
damages and Velez failed to answer and was declared in
default. Judgement was rendered ordering the defendant to
pay plaintiff P2.000 as actual damages P25,000 as moral and
exemplary damages, P2,500 as attorney’s fees. Later, an
attempt by the Court for amicable settlement was given
chance but failed, thereby rendered judgment hence this
appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an

actionable wrong.

HELD: Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable

wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the
preparations and publicity, and to walk out of it when the
matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is
palpably and unjustifiably contrary to customs for which
Francisco must be held answerable for damages in accordance
with Art. 21 of the Civil Code.
Under Art. 2232 of the Civil Code, the conditions
precedent is that the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
When a breach of promise to marry is actionable
under Article 21, moral damages may be awarded under Art.
2219 (10) of the Civil Code. Exemplary damages may also be
awarded under Art. 2232 of the Code where it is proven that
the defendant clearly acted in wanton, reckless and oppressive
manner.

FALLO: PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the above-indicated

modification, the lower court's judgment is hereby affirmed,
with costs.
 Republic of the Philippines vs Jose A. Dayot
GR No. 175581
March 28, 2008

Chico-Nazario, J.

FACTS: On November 24, 1986 Jose and Felisa Dayot were

married at the Pasay City Hall. In lieu of a marriage license,
they executed a sworn affidavit attesting that both of them are
legally capacitated and that they cohabited for at least five
years when in fact they only barely known each other since
February 1986. On 1993, Jose filed a complaint for Annulment
and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage contending that their
marriage was sham, as to no ceremony was celebrated
between them; that he did not execute the sworn statement
that he and Felisa had cohabited for at least five years; and
that his consent was secured through fraud. His sister,
however, testified as witness that Jose voluntarily gave his
consent during their marriage. The complaint was dismissed on
Regional Trial Court stating that Jose is deemed stopped from
assailing the legality of his marriage for lack of marriage
license. The RTC ruled that Jose’s action had prescribed. Jose
appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision
declaring their marriage void ab initio for absence of marriage
license. Felisa sought a petition for review praying that the
Court of Appeal’s Amended decision be reversed and set aside.

ISSUES: (1) Whether the falsity of an affidavit of marital

cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen short of the
minimum five-year requirement, effectively renders the
marriage void an initio for lack of marriage.
(2) Whether or not the action for nullity prescribes as
the case here where Jose filed a complaint after seven years
from contracting marriage.

HELD: (1) Yes. The intendment of law or fact leans towards

the validity of marriage, will not salvage the parties’ marriage,
and extricate them from the effect of a violation of the law. The
Court protects the fabric of the institution of marriage and at
the same time wary of deceptive schemes that violate the
legal measures set forth in the law. The case cannot fall under
irregularity of the marriage license, what happens here is an
absence of marriage license which makes their marriage void
for lack of one of the essential requirement of a valid marriage.
(2) No. An action for nullity is imprescriptible. Jose and
Felisa’s marriage was celebrated san a marriage license. The
right to impugn a void marriage does not prescribe.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED. The Amended
Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 7 November 2006 in
CA-G.R. CV No. 68759, declaring the marriage of Jose Dayot to
Felisa Tecson-Dayot void ab initio, is AFFIRMED, without
prejudice to their criminal liability, if any. No costs.