Classic Case - Case Digest: Article 21 Wassmer vs. Velez

BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964

BENGZON, J.P., J.:

FACTS: Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided to get married on September 4, 1954. But 2 days before their big day, Velez left a note for his bride-to-be that he wanted to postpone their wedding because his mother opposes it. The day before the wedding, he sent a telegram stating that he will comeback for the wedding but he never did.

Beatriz filed for damages to the lower court, and judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay actual (P2,000.00),moral(P25,000.00) and exemplary(P2,500.00) damages. Defendant appealed to the supreme court that the judgment against him is contrary to law, given that there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry.

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

HELD: No. It is not actionable for there was no provision in the Civil Code. But to formally set a wedding and go through the necessary 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 the Civil Code.