Wassner v.

Velez 12 SCRA 648 December 26, 1964

Breach of Marriage

FACTS: In 1954, Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer planned their marriage. They decided to
schedule it on September 4, 1954. And so Wassmer made preparations such as: making and
sending wedding invitations, bought her wedding dress and other apparels, and other
wedding necessities. But 2 days before the scheduled day of wedding, Velez sent a letter to
Wassmer advising her that he will not be able to attend the wedding because his mom was
opposed to the said wedding. And one day before the wedding, he sent another message to
Wassmer advising her that nothing has changed and that he will be returning soon. However, he
never returned.

This prompted Wassmer to file a civil case against Velez. Velez never filed an answer and
eventually judgment was made in favor of Wassmer. The court awarded exemplary and moral
damages in favor of Wassmer.

On appeal, Velez argued that his failure to attend the scheduled wedding was because of
fortuitous events. He further argued that he cannot be held civilly liable for breaching his
promise to marry Wassmer because there is no law upon which such an action may be grounded.
He also contested the award of exemplary and moral damages against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not the award of damages is proper.

HELD: Yes. The defense of fortuitous events raised by Velez is not tenable and also
unsubstantiated. It is true that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.
However, in this case, it was not a simple breach of promise to marry because of such promise,
Wassmer made preparations for the wedding. Velezs unreasonable withdrawal from the
wedding is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. Wassmers cause of action is
supported under Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides in part 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.

And under the law, any violation of Article 21 entitles the injured party to receive an award for
moral damages as properly awarded by the lower court in this case. Further, the award of
exemplary damages is also proper. Here, the circumstances of this case show that Velez, in
breaching his promise to Wassmer, acted in wanton, reckless, and oppressive manner this
warrants the imposition of exemplary damages against him.