ART 19- Breach of Promise to Marry
WASSMER vs VELEZ
FACTS
 Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer following
their mutual love decided to get married on
September 4, 1954
 September 2, 1954, Francisco left a note for
Beatriz to postpone their mother because his
mother opposes it. Velez did not appear nor
was he heard again.
 Records show that Wassmer and Velez applied
for a marriage license and had already incurred
costs for their supposed wedding
 Beatriz sued Velez and Velez failed to answer
and was declared default by the court.
APPLICATION OF LAW
 A mere breach of promise to pay is not an
actionable wrong.
 To formally set a wedding, go through necessary
procedures, only to walk out of it when the
matrimony is about to solemnize is palpable and
justifiable to good customs which holds liability
in accordance with Art, 21 of the NCC
If Expenses Are Actually Incurred
 In this case, every necessary procedure in
having a wedding is already done, meaning they
already incurred costs. Velez running from the
wedding gives Wassmer the right to recover
money or property advanced by her upon the
faith of such promise to marry.
ART. 22-23 UNJUST ENRICHMENT
CASE
GONZALO v TARNATE
FACTS
 After DPWH awarded the contract of
improvement of the Sadsadan-Maba-ay-Section
of the Mt. Province Road on July 22, 1997 to the
petitioner Gonzalo, the petitioner entered into a
subcontract with respondent Tarnate (JNT
Aggregates) to supply materials and labor for
the project.
 Their agreement stipulated that Tarnate would
pay Gonzalo 8% and 4% of the contract price.
 April 6, 1999 Gonzalo executed a deed of
assignment, assigning Tarnate 10% retention
fee for Tarante’s equipment that has been
utilized in the project. Also included in the deed
is the authorization of Gonzalo for Tarnate to
use his company’s receipt in processing the
documents relative to the collection of the 10%
retention fee and encashing the check to be
issued by the DPWH
 During the processing of the documents,
Tarnate learned that Gonzalo unilaterally
rescinded the deed by means of affidavit of
cancellation (04/19/1999)
 The disbursement voucher for the retention fee
of 10% was issued in the name of Gonzalo and
the retention fee was released to him
 Tarnate demanded the payment of retention
fee from Gonzalo, but to no avail.
The subcontract and Deed of Assignment between
Gonzalo and Tarnate are void being contrary to law.
APPLICATION OF LAW
Pari Delicto
-According to Article 1412 (1) of the Civil Code, the
guilty parties to an illegal contract cannot recover from
one another and are not entitled to an affirmative relief
because they are in pari delicto or in equal fault.
The doctrine of in pari delicto is a universal doctrine that
holds that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an
illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific
performance, or to recover the property agreed to be
sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or
damages for its violation; and where the parties
are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will
be given to one against the other.
Nonetheless, the application of the doctrine of in pari
delicto is not always rigid. An accepted exception arises
when its application contravenes well-established
public policy. In this jurisdiction, public policy has been
defined as “that principle of the law which holds that no
subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a
tendency to be injurious to the public or against the
public good.”
 Tarnate was allowed by the court to recover his
retention fee as an exemption due to unjust
enrichment.
 Contract is void
- Every contractor is prohibited from
subcontracting with or assigning to another
person any contract or project that he has with
DPWH unless the DPWH Secretary approved of
such contract.