TANJANCO VS. COURT OF APPEALS his son.
After De Jesus gave birth, they lived together in
On Dec., 1957, Apolonio Tanjanco courted Araceli
Santos. They were both of legal age then. After some
time, they became a couple and in consideration of
Tanjanco’s promise of marriage, Santos acceded to his
pleas of carnal knowledge. This happened regularly for
about one year until Dec. 1959. Santos conceived a
child and as a result of her pregnancy, she was forced to
resign from her job as a secretary in IBM Phil. where she
received a salary of P230.00 monthly. Tanjanco refused
to marry her causing her mental anguish, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock & social
humiliation. She sued Tanjanco for damages.
ISSUE: WON Santos is entitled to damages?
HELD: NO. Reversed. Petition dismissed.
RATIO:
1. Estopa v. Piansay, Hermosisima v. CA, De Jesus
v. SyQuia: actions for breach of a promise to marry
are not permissible in this jurisdiction.
2. Purpose behind 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 damages)
Fill countless gaps in statutes which leave so many
victims or moral wrongs helpless, some even
suffering material & moral injury. (ex. Seduction)
3. SEDUCTION
a. US v. Buenaventura: it’s more than mere
sexual intercourse; it connotes the idea of
deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part of the seducer to which
the woman has yielded. Woman must yield
because of promise or other inducement. If she
consents merely from lust, it’s not seduction.
b. American Jurisprudence: enticement or
deception or persuasion is essence of injury &
mere proof of intercourse insufficient to warrant
recovery.
c. Case at bar: Santos entered into carnal act
voluntarily with mutual passion. Had she been
seduced then she could have gotten out of the
relationship as soon as she can and not wait
until after one year without him fulfilling his
promise to marry her. Thus not covered by CC
Art. 21.
DE JESUS VS. SYQUIA
Cesar Syquia, then 23 years old, single and a scion of a
prominent family in Manila, met Antonia de Jesus, then
20 and unmarried and employed as a cashier at the
barber shop of Vicente Mendoza who was Syquia’s
brother-in-law. They became a couple and later on they
engaged in an intimate relationship that led to the
conception of Ismael Loanco who was born on June 17,
1931. Prior to the birth of the boy, Syquia sent a note to
the priest who was expected to christen the baby telling
him that he wanted his name to be given to the baby.
Likewise, while he was away, he sent letters to De Jesus
telling her to take care of herself and the baby whom he
called Junior. He arranged everything for the arrival of
Manila like a regular family for about a year. When De
Jesus began to show signs of a second pregnancy,
Syquia left his family and is now married to another
woman. De Jesus sued Syquia for damages for
breaching his promise to marry and compelling him
recognize his children.
ISSUES:
1. WON letters & note to priest are valid
acknowledgements of paternity?
2. WON Ismael had an uninterrupted possession of
status as natural child?
3. WON there was breach of promise to marry?
HELD: Recognize first child, and pay for his
maintenance. All other aspects dismissed.
RATIO:
1. Yes. Though unborn, child can already obtain rights.
Note to padre is sufficient, it being clear & not
capable of 2 constructions. Doubt on the letter to the
padre, removed by the letters sent by Syquia to de
Jesus while he was away. All these letters can be put
together to supplement each other.
2. Yes. CC Art. 135(2) (Father may be compelled to
acknowledge his natural child: when the child has
been in the uninterrupted possession of a status of
natural child of defendant father, justified by conduct
of the father himself or that of his family).
Law didn’t fix period for continuous possession of
status of natural child.
Continuous: concession of status shall continue
forever, but only that it shall not be of an intermittent
(broken, inconsistent) character while it continues.
3. No. It’s not satisfactorily proven and has no standing
in civil law except when there’s rt to recover money or
property advanced upon faith of such promise.
DISSENTING OPINION:
1. Written requirement must be complete in and by itself
and should contain statements that are necessary to
constitute a full and clear acknowledgement. Letters
are vague. You can’t ascertain who Junior or the
creature coming out in June is. You’d need to prove
illicit relationship between De Jesus and Syquia and
in the process of investigating, you’ll violate rule
which prohibits investigation on paternity except when
under Art. 135 CC.
2. Father may be compelled to acknowledge natural
child if there is an Uninterrupted possession of status
of natural child. In this case, no proof that status was
uninterrupted. Proof based on letters done prior to
birth of child is inadmissible. Unborn, thus, he has no
rights yet.
BUENAVENTURA VS. URBANO: Recognition of
children is verbally is not sufficient. It must appear in
writing. .
3. Can’t make him liable, due to lack of acknowledgment
of paternity written in an unquestionable manner and
child has not enjoyed uninterrupted possession of
status of natural child.
-trina- ü