Breach of Promise to Marry

The record reveals that on August 23, 1954 Beatriz and Francisco applied for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued. Their wedding was set for September 4, 1954. Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances. The bride-to-be's trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased. Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and gifts received. And then, with but two days before the wedding, defendant, who was then 28 years old,: simply left a note for plaintiff stating: "Will have to postpone wedding — My mother opposes it ... " He enplaned to his home city in Mindanao, and the next day, the day before the wedding, he wired plaintiff: "Nothing changed rest assured returning soon." But he never returned and was never heard from again.



The Supreme Court said that mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation 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 of our Civil Code provides that "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."

Francisco is then charged with damages.

READ FULL ARTICLE Wassmer Vs. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964

Mga Komento

Mga sikat na post sa blog na ito

People Vs. Dio, GR No. L-36461, June 29, 1984

People Vs. Lamahang, GR No L-4330, August 3, 1935

People Vs. Campuhan, GR No. 129433, March 30, 2000