PERSONS Case Digest on Wassmer vs Velez: Facts:Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer are to be wed because of their

mutual promise of love with each other on September 4,1952. Francisco left for Cagayan De Oro two days before the wedding,leaving her a note that the wedding’s postponed 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, and judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay actual(P2,000.00), moral(P25,000.00) and exemplary(P2,500.00) damages. Defendant now asserts 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 is no provision in the Civil Code but the case is not a mere breach of promise to marry. Francisco must still be punished for the damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil Code. Ratio: The SC perpetuated that though breach of promise to marry is not actionable because there is no provision in the Civil Code, the defendant’s act is still punishable under Article 21 of the Civil Code which states that “any 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 the damage.” The defendant acted contrary to Article 21 because he was reckless and oppressive in calling the wedding off days before even if everything was already arranged for.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful