Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

by Ma. Cristina B. Perez

Article 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.

Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements:
(1) There is an act which is legal;
(2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and
(3) it is done with intent to injure.

Recovery of damages even without positive law.

There is a marked distinction between Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code, for while the
recovery under the former is based on law, the latter is not based on law. Be that as it may, if the
loss or injury was due to a willful act or omission and the same is contrary to morals, public
policy, or good customs, liability would still attach upon the violator. It cannot be justly denied
that laws have sprung up from the fountain of morals and good customs.

How the law was justified.

The codifiers of the Civil Code justified Article 21 by giving an example, thus:

“ ‘A’ seduces the nineteen-year-old daughter of ‘X.’ A promise of marriage either has not been
made, or cannot be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Under the present Art. 21 THE CIVIL
CODE CHAPTER II — HUMAN RELATIONS 106 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
laws, there is no crime, as the girl is above eighteen years of age. Neither can any civil action for
breach of promise of marriage be filed. Therefore, though a grievous moral wrong has been
committed, and though the girl and her family have suffered incalculable moral damage, she and
her parents cannot bring any action for damages. But under this article, she and her parents
would have such a right of action.’’

But it is always said that every good law draws its breath of life from morals, hence, the Code
Commission asked: “would not this article obliterate the boundary line between morality and
law? The answer is that, in the last analysis, every good law draws its breath of life from morals,
from those principles which are written with words of fire in the conscience of man.
CASE DIGEST:

BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, vs.

FRANCISCO X. VELEZ,
12 SCRA 648

FACTS:

In Wassmer vs. Velez, 12 SCRA 648, Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer formally set their
wedding on September 4, 1954. On September 2, 1954, however, he left a note for his bride-to-
be postponing the marriage because his mother was opposed to the wedding. Since then, he has
never been heard of. Wassmer filed a suit for damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not breach of promise to marry is actionable.

Did the court err in ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff moral damages?

HELD:

Surely this is not a case of breach of promise to marry. As stated, 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, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized,
is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which
defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.

The mere fact the couple have already filed a marriage license and already spent for
invitations, wedding apparels, gives the plaintiff reason to demand for payment of
damages. The court affirmed the previous judgment and ordered the defendant to pay
the plaintiff moral damages for the humiliation she suffered; actual damages for the
expenses incurred and exemplary damages because the defendant acted fraudulently in
making the plaintiff believe that he will come back and the wedding will push through.