7/1/13

Tanjanco v. CA | ulan.di digests

Tanjanco v. CA
Facts: Apolonio Trajanco courted Araceli Santos. Since he promised her marriage, she consented to his pleas for carnal knowledge. As a result, she conceived a child, and due to her condition, she had to resign from her work. Because she was unable to support herself and the baby, and the Apolonio refused to marry her, she instituted an action for damages, compelling the defendant to recognize the unborn child, pay her monthly support, plus P100,000 in moral and exemplary damages. Issue: Whether or not the acts of petitioner constitute seduction as contemplated in Art. 21. Held: No, it is not. Seduction is more than mere sexual intercourse or a breach of promise to marry. It connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded. In this case, for 1 whole year, the woman maintained intimate sexual relations with the defendant, and such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction. Plainly here there is voluntariness and mutual passion, for had the plaintiff been deceived, she would not have again yielded to his embraces for a year.

ulandi-digest.blogspot.com/2012/06/tanjanco-v-ca.html

1/1