WASSMER VS VELEZ

G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964

BENGZON, J.P., J.:
FACTS: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love,
decided to get married and set Sept. 4, 1954 as the big day. On Sept. 2, 1954, Velez left a note
for his bride-to-be saying that he wants to postpone the marriage as his mother opposes it and
that he is leaving. But the next day, Sept. 3, he sent her a telegram and told her that nothing
has changed, that he is returning and he apologizes. Thereafter, Velez did not appear nor was
he heard from again. Wassmer sued him for damages. Velez filed no answer and was declared
in default.
ISSUE: Is the case at bar a mere breach of promise to marry?
RULING: 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 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 Art. 21 of the NCC
which provides 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."
DECISION: Affirmed.

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.

De Jesus v. Syquia, 58 Phil 866

FACTS: Antonia Loanco de Jesus, 20 years old, and Cesar Syquia, 23 met
in a barber shop where de Jesus worked as cashier. They had a
relationship and Antonia got pregnant with a baby boy. During her
pregnancy, Syquia often visited her. He even wrote a letter to a reverend
father saying that he wanted his name to be given to the child. When he
went to Japan and China, he was writing letters to Antonia reminding her
to keep herself in good condition so that their junior would be strong.
When she gave birth, Syquia took her and the child to live in a house in
Manila where they lived as a family for a year. She became pregnant again
but Syquia left her to marry another woman. During the christening of the
child which Syquia arranged, he decided to give the child the name of
Ismael Loanco instead of Cesar Syquia Jr.
ISSUE: W/N there would be damages for breach to marry and W/N Syquia
is compelled to recognize Ismael Loanco as his natural child
HELD: The letter written by Syquia to the Rev Fr serves as an admission of
paternity and the other letters are sufficient to connect the admission with
the child carried by Antonia. P50.00 to ismael Loanco. The SC held that
they agree with the trial court in refusing to provide damages for breach of
promise to marry since this has no standing in court.

Piccininni vs. Hajus

FACTS
The petitioner, Piccininni, claims that the defendant, Hajus, made him
believe that they would get married and live at her house. Because of this,
Piccininni spent $40,000 to renovate and improve her house. Hajus
claimed that she cant be charged with fraud and that what she committed
was a breach of promise to marry. Therefore, no action can be brought
upon her because of the Heart Balm Act. The Heart Balm Act states no
action shall be brought upon any cause from alienation of affections or
from breach of promise to marry. Trial court ruled that the Heart Balm Act
bars Piccininni from charging Hajus. Case brought to SC.
ISSUE
WON Piccinnini can recover his property in light of the Heart Balm Act
HELD
Yes. Piccininni is not asking for damages because of a broken heart or a
mortified spirit. He is asking for the return of things which he gave to
Hajus because of her fraudulent representations. Picininni does not assert
that Hajus wronged him in failing to marry him. He just asserted that she
wronged him in fraudulently inducing him to transfer property to her. His
complaint is based on what she did, and not on what she refused to do.
Hence, trial courts judgment was reverse.