Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

This is a petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Facts:
Soledad, had an intimate relationship with Francisco who was 10 years younger than her.
When she got pregnant, Francisco promised to marry her. Chris was born on June 17, 1954.
However, on July 24, 1954, Francisco married Romanita Perez
October 4, 1954 Soledad Cagigas filed a complaint against Francisco Hermosisima for
the acknowledgment of her child, Chris Hermosisima, as well as support for the child and
moral damages for breach of promise
Francisco admitted he is the father of the child and expressed willingness to give support
but denied promising marriage to Soledad
The court rendered judgment acknowledging the child as Franciscos daughter and
ordering him to pay P30/month for child support as well as P4,500 for actual and
compensatory damages, P5000 as moral damages, and P500 for attorneys fees
CA affirmed this decision but increased the compensatory damages and moral damages to
P5,614.25 and P7,000
Issue:
WON moral damages are recoverable for breach of promise to marry
Held:
The Court affirmed the decision of the CA but eliminated the payment of the moral
damages
The action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the
right to recover money or property advanced xxx upon the faith of such promise
Since the law making bodys intent is not to sanction actions for breach of promise to
marry, the award of moral damages made by the court is untenable even if the justification
of the said award is that Francisco seduced Soledad.
The Court does not find Francisco morally guilty of seduction because:
o He is 10 years younger than Soledad
o And because the trial court found that Soledad surrendered herself to Francisco
because overwhelmed by her love for him, she wanted to bind him by having a fruit of
their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy

Wassmer vs. Velez

This is an appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Rizal.
Facts:
August 23, 1954 - Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a marriage license
which was subsequently issued. The wedding was set on September 4, 1954
September 2, 1954 Francisco left a note to Beatriz stating that the wedding will have to
be postponed and that she sould not ask many people for the reason to avoid scandal
September 3, 1954 Francisco sent a telegram telling Beatriz that the wedding is back on
o He did not appear nor was he heard from again
Beatriz sued Francisco for damages.
o Velez was declared in default since he did not file an answer
April 29, 1955 the court ordered Francisco to pay P2,000 as actual damages, P25,000 as
moral and exemplary damages, P2,500 as attorneys fees
June 21, 1955 Francisco filed a Petition for Relief from Orders, Judgment and Proceedings
and Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration
The court tried an amicable settlement between the two but the possibility of such was nil
July 20, 1956 defendants motion was denied
Issue: WON Beatriz has the right to sue for breach of promise to marry
Held: The Court held that what Francisco did was not a case of mere breach of promise of
contract to marry. Preparations for the wedding have already been madewedding
trousseau were purchased, invitations were sent, among otherswhen, two days before the
wedding Francisco walked out on his bride to be. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary
to good customs for which Francisco must be held liable for damages.
Moral damages was reduced to P15,000

Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals

This is a petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the CA.

Facts:
From December 1957, Apolonio Tanjanco courted Araceli Santos
The two became a couple afterwards and because Apolonio promised he would marry her,
Araceli consented to have sex with him regularly until December 1959 which resulted to
Aracelis pregnancy
When Apolonio learned of the pregnancy, he stopped seeing Araceli
Araceli was forced to resign from her job as secretary of IBM to avoid embarassment and
social humiliation
Araceli suffered mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock
and social humiliation because of Apolonios breach of promise to marry
She then sued him for support, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees
Trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action
CA found that Araceli stated a cause of action for damages premised on Art 21 of the civil
code:
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully 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
Issue:
WON Tanjanco violated Article 21, specifically if whether or not he seduced Araceli
Held:
No. Seduction in law is more than mere sexual intercourse or a breach of a promise of
marriage. It connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded. The Court does not
find that Araceli was seduced since Araceli, an adult, maintained a sexual relationship with
Apolonio for one whole year. This shows voluntariness and mutual passion and that Araceli
was not deceived by Apolonio. Hence, no case is made under Art. 21. The decision of CA is
reversed and that of the CFI is affirmed.

Baksh vs CA
Facts:
Baksh, an Iranian exchange student taking a medical course in Lyceum Northwestern
Colleges in Dagupan City courted and proposed to marry Marilou Gonzales. She accepted the
proposal on the condition that they were getting married during the semestral break. Baksh
then visited her Gonzalezs parents to secure approval of their marriage. Sometime after,
baksh was able to force her to live with him in his apartment. She was a virgin prior to that.
And then Baksh started maltreating her and threatening to kill her. Thus she filed a
complaint claiming for damages. Baksh said that he didnt promise to marry her, never
sought consent from her parents, forced her to live with him or maltreated her. In the end
the RTC ruled in favor of Marilou on the bases that the parties were lovers and that she was
not a woman of loose morals and that she only allowed herself to be deflowered (haha!)
because of his promise to marry her etc. Baksh appealed the decision in the CA but the CA
affirmed the RTC decision further saying that Bakshs admission of his common law wife in
Bacolod before he wooed Marilou is a proof that he isnt a man of good character and that
his acts are against morals, good customs, public policy, and derogatory of women.
Issue:
WON damages for breach of promise to marry are recoverable under the provisions of
Art. 21 of the Civil Code.
Held:
Yes. In this case the court found that it was Bakshs fraudulent and deceptive
protestations of love for and promise to marry the plaintiff that made her surrender her
virginity and to live with him in sincere belief that he would keep that promise. She had
surrendered her virginity not because of her lust but because of moral seduction. Thus she is
entitled to claim for damages under Art. 21 not because of the breach of promise to marry
but because of the fraud and deceit behind the promise and the willful injury to her honor
and reputation.