Supreme Court: Jalandoni & Jamir For Defendant-Appellant. Samson S. Alcantara For Plaintiff-Appellee

Republic of the Philippines and on April 29, 1955, judgment was rendered
SUPREME COURT ordering defendant to pay plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual

Manila damages; P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary
damages; P2,500.00 as attorney's fees; and the
EN BANC costs.
G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964 On June 21, 1955 defendant filed a "petition for relief
from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion
for new trial and reconsideration." Plaintiff moved to
BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, strike it cut. But the court, on August 2, 1955, ordered
vs. the parties and their attorneys to appear before it on
FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant. August 23, 1955 "to explore at this stage of the
proceedings the possibility of arriving at an amicable
Jalandoni & Jamir for defendant-appellant. settlement." It added that should any of them fail to
Samson S. Alcantara for plaintiff-appellee. appear "the petition for relief and the opposition
thereto will be deemed submitted for resolution."
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
On August 23, 1955 defendant failed to appear before
The facts that culminated in this case started with court. Instead, on the following day his counsel filed a
dreams and hopes, followed by appropriate planning motion to defer for two weeks the resolution on
and serious endeavors, but terminated in frustration defendants petition for relief. The counsel stated that
and, what is worse, complete public humiliation. he would confer with defendant in Cagayan de Oro
City — the latter's residence — on the possibility of an
amicable element. The court granted two weeks
Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer, following counted from August 25, 1955.
their mutual promise of love, decided to get married
and set September 4, 1954 as the big day. On
September 2, 1954 Velez left this note for his bride-to- Plaintiff manifested on June 15, 1956 that the two
be: weeks given by the court had expired on September
8, 1955 but that defendant and his counsel had failed
to appear.
Dear Bet —
Another chance for amicable settlement was given by
Will have to postpone wedding — the court in its order of July 6, 1956 calling the parties
My mother opposes it. Am leaving and their attorneys to appear on July 13, 1956. This
on the Convair today. time. however, defendant's counsel informed the court
that chances of settling the case amicably were nil.
Please do not ask too many people
about the reason why — That On July 20, 1956 the court issued an order denying
would only create a scandal. defendant's aforesaid petition. Defendant has
appealed to this Court. In his petition of June 21, 1955
Paquing in the court a quo defendant alleged excusable
negligence as ground to set aside the judgment by
default. Specifically, it was stated that defendant filed
But the next day, September 3, he sent her the
no answer in the belief that an amicable settlement
following telegram:
was being negotiated.
NOTHING CHANGED REST

A petition for relief from judgment on grounds of fraud,
ASSURED RETURNING VERY
accident, mistake or excusable negligence, must be
SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA
duly supported by an affidavit of merits stating facts
LOVE .
constituting a valid defense. (Sec. 3, Rule 38, Rules
of Court.) Defendant's affidavit of merits attached to
PAKING his petition of June 21, 1955 stated: "That he has a
good and valid defense against plaintiff's cause of
Thereafter Velez did not appear nor was he heard action, his failure to marry the plaintiff as scheduled
from again. having been due to fortuitous event and/or
circumstances beyond his control." An affidavit of
merits like this stating mere conclusions or opinions
Sued by Beatriz for damages, Velez filed no answer
instead of facts is not valid. (Cortes vs. Co Bun Kim,
and was declared in default. Plaintiff adduced
L-3926, Oct. 10, 1951; Vaswani vs. P. Tarrachand
evidence before the clerk of court as commissioner,
Bros., L-15800, December 29, 1960.)
Defendant, however, would contend that the affidavit wedding and go through all the above-described
of merits was in fact unnecessary, or a mere preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when
surplusage, because the judgment sought to be set the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite
aside was null and void, it having been based on different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to
evidence adduced before the clerk of court. In good customs for which defendant must be held
Province of Pangasinan vs. Palisoc, L-16519, October answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21
30, 1962, this Court pointed out that the procedure of aforesaid.
designating the clerk of court as commissioner to
receive evidence is sanctioned by Rule 34 (now Rule Defendant urges in his afore-stated petition that the
33) of the Rules of Court. Now as to defendant's damages awarded were excessive. No question is
consent to said procedure, the same did not have to raised as to the award of actual damages. What
be obtained for he was declared in default and thus defendant would really assert hereunder is that the
had no standing in court (Velez vs. Ramas, 40 Phil. award of moral and exemplary damages, in the
787; Alano vs. Court of First Instance, L-14557, amount of P25,000.00, should be totally eliminated.
October 30, 1959).
Per express provision of Article 2219 (10) of the New
In support of his "motion for new trial and Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the
reconsideration," defendant asserts that the judgment cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code. As to
is contrary to law. The reason given is that "there is exemplary damages, defendant contends that the
no provision of the Civil Code authorizing" an action same could not be adjudged against him because
for breach of promise to marry. Indeed, our ruling under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code the condition
in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals (L-14628, Sept. precedent is that "the defendant acted in a wanton,
30, 1960), as reiterated in Estopa vs. Biansay (L- fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent
14733, Sept. 30, 1960), is that "mere breach of a manner." The argument is devoid of merit as under
promise to marry" is not an actionable wrong. We the above-narrated circumstances of this case
pointed out that Congress deliberately eliminated from defendant clearly acted in a "wanton ... , reckless
the draft of the new Civil Code the provisions that [and] oppressive manner." This Court's opinion,
would have it so. however, is that considering the particular
circumstances of this case, P15,000.00 as moral and
It must not be overlooked, however, that the extent to exemplary damages is deemed to be a reasonable
which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated award.
with impunity, is not limitless for Article 21 of said
Code provides that "any person who wilfully causes PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the above-indicated
loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to modification, the lower court's judgment is hereby
morals, good customs or public policy shall affirmed, with costs.
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

Supreme Court: Jalandoni & Jamir For Defendant-Appellant. Samson S. Alcantara For Plaintiff-Appellee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court: Jalandoni & Jamir For Defendant-Appellant. Samson S. Alcantara For Plaintiff-Appellee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines and on April 29, 1955, judgment was rendered

SUPREME COURT ordering defendant to pay plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual

NOTHING CHANGED REST

The record reveals that on August 23, 1954 plaintiff

Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to

You might also like