WV digest
2
Wassmer vs. Velez Case Digest G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964 12 SCRA 648 Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a Marriage License on August 23, 1954. The wedding was to take place on September 4, 1954. All the necessary preparations were undertaken for the said event. However, two days before the wedding, Francisco left a note for Beatriz informing her that the wedding will not push through because his mother opposed the union. The following day, he sent her a telegram stating that he will be returning very soon. Francisco never showed up and has not been heard since then. Beatriz subsequently sued Francisco for damages. The trial court ordered Francisco to pay Beatriz actual, moral and exemplary damages. Francisco filed a petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration, which was denied, by the trial court. Francisco appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law, as there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry. Issue: May Francisco be held liable to pay Beatriz damages for breach of promise to marry? Held: Yes. Francisco may be held liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code, which provides: "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." Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21. Wassmer vs. Velez Case Digest G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964 12 SCRA 648 Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a Marriage License on August 23, 1954. The wedding was to take place on September 4, 1954. All the necessary preparations were undertaken for the said event. However, two days before the wedding, Francisco left a note for Beatriz informing her that the wedding will not push through because his mother opposed the union. The following day, he sent her a telegram stating that he will be returning very soon. Francisco never showed up and has not been heard since then. Beatriz subsequently sued Francisco for damages. The trial court ordered Francisco to pay Beatriz actual, moral and exemplary damages. Francisco filed a petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration, which was denied, by the trial court. Francisco appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law, as there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry. Issue: May Francisco be held liable to
description
WV digest
Transcript of WV digest
Wassmer vs. VelezCase DigestG.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 196412 SCRA 648
Facts:Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a Marriage License on August 23, 1954. The wedding was to take place on September 4, 1954. All the necessary preparations were undertaken for the said event. However, two days before the wedding,Franciscoleft a note for Beatriz informing her that the weddingwill not push through because his mother opposed the union. The following day, he sent her a telegram stating that he will be returning very soon.Francisconever showed up and has not been heard since then. Beatriz subsequently suedFranciscofor damages. The trialcourt ordered Franciscoto pay Beatriz actual, moral andexemplary damages.
Francisco filed a petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration, which was denied, by the trial court. Francisco appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law, as there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry.
Issue:May Franciscobe held liableto payBeatrizdamages for breach of promise to marry?
Held:Yes.Franciscomay be held liable underArticle 21 of the Civil Code, which provides: "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."
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different.Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry.This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.
Wassmer vs. VelezCase DigestG.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 196412 SCRA 648
Facts:Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a Marriage License on August 23, 1954. The wedding was to take place on September 4, 1954. All the necessary preparations were undertaken for the said event. However, two days before the wedding,Franciscoleft a note for Beatriz informing her that the weddingwill not push through because his mother opposed the union. The following day, he sent her a telegram stating that he will be returning very soon.Francisconever showed up and has not been heard since then. Beatriz subsequently suedFranciscofor damages. The trialcourt ordered Franciscoto pay Beatriz actual, moral andexemplary damages.
Francisco filed a petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration, which was denied, by the trial court. Francisco appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law, as there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry.
Issue:May Franciscobe held liableto payBeatrizdamages for breach of promise to marry?
Held:Yes.Franciscomay be held liable underArticle 21 of the Civil Code, which provides: "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."
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different.Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry.This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.
