G.R. No. L-20089| December 26, 1964
BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, vs. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ
G.R. No. L-20089
December 26, 1964
Rationale: An
affidavit of merit stating no facts, but merely an inference that
defendant’s failure was due to fortuitous events and/or circumstances beyond
his control, is held to contain a conclusion of fact, not a fact.
Case Summary:
Facts:
1. The
facts that culminated in this case started with dreams and hopes, followed by
appropriate planning and serious endeavors, but terminated in frustration and,
what is worse, complete public humiliation.
2. Francisco
X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love,
decided to get married and set September 4, 1954 as the big day.
3.
On
September 2, 1954 Velez left this note for his bride-to-be.
Dear Bet —
Will have to
postpone wedding — My mother opposes it. Am leaving on the Convair today.
Please do not ask
too many people about the reason why — That would only create a scandal.
Paquing
|
4.
But
the next day, September 3, he sent her the following telegram:
NOTHING CHANGED
REST ASSURED RETURNING VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA LOVE .
PAKING
|
5.
Thereafter
Velez did not appear nor was he heard from again.
6. Beatriz
file a case for damages against Velez and judgment was rendered against Velez
(Velez in here was declared in default because he did not file an answer to the
complaint made by Beatriz.
7. The
court ordered Velez to pay Beatriz the following to wit: plaintiff P2,000.00 as
actual damages; P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; P2,500.00 as
attorney's fees; and the costs.
8. Velez filed a "petition for relief from
orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration,"
on the judgment rendered by lower court ordering Velez o pay Beatriz.
9.
Plaintiff
moved to strike it out.
10. But
the court, ordered the parties and their attorneys to appear before it "to
explore at this stage of the proceedings the
possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement."
11. It
added that should any of them fail to appear "the petition for relief and
the opposition thereto will be deemed submitted for resolution."
12.
Velez
failed to appear before court.
13. Instead,
on the following day his counsel filed a motion to defer for two weeks the
resolution on Velez’s petition for relief which the court granted.
14. Thereafter,
Beatriz manifested that the two weeks given by the court had expired but Velez
and his counsel had failed to appear.
15. Another
chance for amicable settlement was given by the court in its order calling the
parties and their attorneys to appear.
16. This
time, however, defendant's counsel informed the court that chances of settling
the case amicably were nil.
17. Because
of that, the court issued an order denying defendant's aforesaid petition.
18.
Defendant
has appealed to this Court (Supreme Court).
19. In
his petition in the court a quo defendant alleged excusable
negligence as ground to set aside the judgment by default.
20. Specifically,
it was stated that defendant filed no answer in the belief that an amicable
settlement was being negotiated.
Issue/s:
1. Whether
or not the damages awarded were proper
2. Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an actionable
wrong in this case.
Held:
1.
Yes.
Velez's
affidavit of merits attached to his petition stated: "That he has a good
and valid defense against plaintiff's cause of action, his failure to marry the
plaintiff as scheduled having been
due to fortuitous event and/or circumstances beyond his control."
[[1]] An affidavit of merits like this, stating
mere conclusions or opinions instead of facts is not valid.
The
defense of fortuitous events raised by Velez is not tenable and also
unsubstantiated.
It is true that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.
However, in this case, it was not a simple breach of promise to marry, because
of such promise, Wassmer made preparations for the wedding. Velez’s
unreasonable withdrawal from the wedding is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy. Wassmer’s cause of action is supported under Article
21 of the Civil Code which provides in part “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.”
And under the law,
any violation of Article 21 entitles the injured party to receive an award for
moral damages as properly awarded by the lower court in this case. Further, the
award of exemplary damages is also proper. Here, the circumstances of this case
show that Velez, in breaching his promise to Wassmer, acted in wanton,
reckless, and oppressive manner – this warrants the imposition of exemplary
damages against him.
Per express provision
of Article 2219 (10) of the New Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in
the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code. As to exemplary damages,
defendant contends that the same could not be adjudged against him because
under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code the condition precedent is that
"the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner." The argument is devoid of merit as under the
above-narrated circumstances of this case defendant clearly acted in a
"wanton ... , reckless [and] oppressive manner." This Court's
opinion, however, is that considering the particular circumstances of this
case, P15,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages is deemed to be a reasonable
award.
2.
NO.
In support of his "motion for new trial
and reconsideration," defendant asserts that the judgment is contrary to
law. The reason given is that
"there is no provision of the Civil Code authorizing" an action for
breach of promise to marry. Indeed, our ruling in Hermosisima vs.
Court of Appeals, [[2]]
as reiterated in Estopa vs. Biansay, [[3]]
is that "mere breach of a promise to marry" is not an actionable wrong. We pointed out that Congress
deliberately eliminated from the draft of the new Civil Code the provisions
that would have it so.
It must not be overlooked, however, that the
extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is
not limitless for Article 21 of said 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."
The record reveals
that on August 23, 1954 plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to
contract marriage, which was subsequently issued (Exhs. A, A-1). Their wedding
was set for September 4, 1954. Invitations were printed and distributed to
relatives, friends and acquaintances (Tsn., 5; Exh. C). The bride-to-be's
trousseau, party drsrses and other apparel for the important occasion were
purchased (Tsn., 7-8). 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 (Tsn., 6; Exh. E). 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.
Surely
this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, 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 aforesaid.
Dispositive
portion of SC’s Judgement:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the above-indicated modification,
the lower court's judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs.
[1]
Cortes
vs. Co Bun Kim, L-3926, Oct. 10, 1951; Vaswani vs. P. Tarrachand Bros.,
L-15800, December 29, 1960
[2]
(L-14628, Sept.
30, 1960)
[3]
(L-14733, Sept.
30, 1960)