Gashem Shookat Baksh vs.

CA, 219 SCRA 115 (1993)

Hugot Law School

G.R. No. 97336 (219 SCRA 115) – February 19, 1993 Gashem Shookat Baksh, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals
and Marilou T. Gonzales

bebejoy14

2 years ago

Advertisements

G.R. No. 97336 (219 SCRA 115) – February 19, 1993

Gashem Shookat Baksh, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Marilou T. Gonzales

Civil Law – The New Civil Code – Human Relations

Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Facts:

Marilou T. Gonzales, a 22 year old Filipino, single and of good moral character and reputation, duly
respected in her community filed a complaint on October 27, 1987, against Gashem Shookat Baksh, an
Iranian citizen, and an exchange student taking up a medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern
Colleges in Dagupan City. The complaint for damages is due to Baksh’s violation of their agreement to
get married.
Prior to the filing of complaint, Gashem courted Marilou and proposed to marry her. She accepted his
love on the condition that they will get married. They agreed to get married at the end of the semester,
which was October of that year. They also visited Marilou’s parents in Pangasinan to secure their
approval to the marriage.

Shortly thereafter, Gashem forced the petitioner to live with him in Guilig, Dagupan City. It should be
noted that she was a virgin before she lived with him and not a woman of loose morals. A few weeks
after she begun living with him, Gashem started to maltreat her, which result to injuries. A confrontation
with the barangay captain of Guilig ensued and Gashem repudiated their marriage agreement and said
that he is already married to a girl in Bacolod City.

On October 16, 1989, the lower court applied Article 21 of the New Civil Code in its decision favoring
Marilou Gonzales and ordered Gashem Baksh to pay PhP 20,000 moral damges, PhP 3,000.00 in
attorney’s fees and PhP 2,000.00 for the litigation expenses.

Hence, Baksh filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking for the review of the decision of the
Regional Trial Court in Pangasinan and to set aside the said decision which was also affirmed in toto by
the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Held:
The Court held that the breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However, the
Court rules that no foreigner should make a mockery of our laws. It was evident from the facts
presented to the Court that Gashem Baksh had not intention to marry Marilou Gonzales on the account
of her “ignoble birth, inferior educational background, poverty and, as perceived by him, dishonorable
employment.”

In the case presented, Gashem Baksh was not motivated by good faith and honest motive when he
proposed his love and promised to marry Marilou Gonzales. He was merely motivated by lust and
“clearly violated the Filipino’s concept of morality and brazenly defied the traditional respect Filipinos
have for their women.”

The Court affirmed the Decisions of the lower court and the Court of Appeals pursuant to Aticle 21 of the
New Civil Code, not because of the breach of promise to marry, but due the fraud and deceit employed
by herein petitioner that wilfully caused injury to the honor and reputation of the herein private
respondent, which committed contrary to the morals, good customs or public policy.

Advertisements

Categories: Case Digests

Leave a Comment

Hugot Law School

WordPress.com.

Back to top

Advertisements