Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BBSBSN
BBSBSN
TUAZON, DCL
Dean
Greetings!
Here is my proposed thesis topic together with its supporting documents for your approval.
“A Revisit On The Concept Of Breach Of Promise To Marry An Actionable Within The City Of Malolos
Bulacan In The Years 2015 To 2017”
The following are the supporting documents for the proposed thesis title:
https://www.manilatimes.net/breach-promise-marry/361537/
https://jlp-law.com/blog/breach-promise-marry/
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1960/sep1960/gr_l-14628_1960.html
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/damages-for-breach-of-promise-to-marry.html
https://thelovelybiatch.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/law-for-the-idiots-day-9-breach-of-promise-to-marry/
https://firm.batasnatin.com/forum/suggestion-box/131-breach-of-promise-to-marry.html
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wpbreachofpromise.htm
http://jaysoncivil.blogspot.com/2011/09/main-topic-sub-topic-nota-bene.html
http://thelegallyinclined.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-do-or-i-sue-breach-of-promise-to.html
Excerpts:
From the facts you presented, it seems that all the preparations pertaining to your wedding have already been
planned and paid for, which is similar to the case of Wassmer vs. Velez (G. R. No. L-20089; December 26,
1964; ponente, former Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon) wherein the Supreme Court declared:
“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.” [Emphasis supplied.]
The case is not merely for a breach of promise to marry, which is not an actionable wrong. In fact, 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.
To formally set a wedding and go through all the preparations 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.
Art. 63. Damages for breach of promise to marry shall include not only material and pecuniary losses but also
compensation for mental and moral suffering.
Art. 64. Any person, other than a rival, the parents, guardians and grandparents, of the affianced parties, who
cause a marriage engagement to be broken shall be liable for damages, both material and moral, to the
engaged person who is rejected.
Art. 65. In case of breach of promise to marry, the party breaking the engagement shall be obliged to return
what he or she has received from the other as gift on account of the promise of the marriage.
These article were, however, eliminated in Congress. The reason therefor are set forth in the report of the
corresponding Senate Committee, from which we quote:
The elimination of this Chapter is proposed. That breach of promise to marry is not actionable has been
definitely decide in the case of De Jesus vs. Syquia, 58 Phil., 866. The history of breach of promise suit in the
United States and in England has shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing
women and unscrupulous men. It is this experience which has led to the abolition of the rights of action in
the so-called Balm suit in many of the American States.
4. Damages for Breach of Promise to Marry
A breach of promise to marry, or simply, “breach of a promise,” occurs when a person promises to marry
another, and then backs out of their agreement. In about half of all U.S. states, a promise to marry is
considered to be legally enforceable, so long as the promise or agreement fulfills all the basic requirements of
a valid contract.
The failure to fulfill a promise to marry is treated like a breach of contract. Meaning, quite simply, a party can
hold the other party liable for breaking their promise.
The laws governing promises to marry are known as “Heart Balm Laws.” If a state does not enforce a heart
balm statute, then no lawsuit may be filed for a breach of promise to marry. The parties will not be entitled
to damages for losses. However, recovery may still be possible through a cause of action for fraud.
“Every 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 damages.”
Ayan, di ko na iyan kailangan ipaliwanag. Malinaw na malinaw pa yan sa commercial ng Ginebra. Kung
willfull ang paggawa mo ng loss or injury sa ibang tao in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy, mananagot ka sa kanya sa pamamagitan ng damages.
Breach of promise to marry is generally not an actionable wrong unless you suffered damages of the promise
to marry was the reason why you had sex with your partner.
Now that the case is pending in court, just let the wheels of justice roll.
JD 4B