Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wassmer vs. Velez
Wassmer vs. Velez
Velez On August 23, 1954 plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to
| Dec. 6, 1964 | J. Bengzon contract marriage, which was subsequently issued. Their wedding was
set for September 4, 1954. Invitations were printed and distributed to
Digest maker: Dungo relatives, friends and acquaintances. The bride-to-be's trousseau, party
dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased.
SUMMARY: Wassmer and Velez were supposed to get married but 2 days Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A
before the marriage, Velez cancelled it through letter. They had already matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were
gone through all the preparations such as sending out the invitations, given and gifts received.
buying beds and accessories, etc. Wassmer sued for damages. With just two days before the wedding, defendant simply wrote her a
letter and went to Mindanao where he wire her the telegram and never
DOCTRINE: A mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable contacted her again.
wrong. However, To formally set a wedding and go through all the above- ● To formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described
described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is
matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different from a mere about to be solemnized, is quite different from a mere breach of
breach of promise to marry. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to promise to marry. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good
good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in
in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid. accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.
Issue: WON an action for breach of promise to marry could prosper? – YES