ARTICLE 20.

Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
CASE ANTECEDENT FACTS APPLICATION OF LAW
MANUEL V. PEOPLE  Eduardo Manuel married Rubylus Gana on July 28, 1975. Article 20 speaks of the general sanctions of all other provisions of law which
 He met Tina Gandalera (GRO) in 1996 and proposed to her on several occasions, do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is exercised in a
also assuring that he was single. They married on April 22, 1996. manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision
 Starting 1999, Manuel limited his stay and went to their house only once or twice and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which
a year. Manuel slaps Tina when she asks for money. the wrongdoer must be responsible. If the provision does not provide a remedy
In January 2001, Manuel left and did not return. He also stopped giving financial for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 of
support. the Civil Code would be proper.
 Tina found out in August of 2001 that Manuel was married.
Manuel on his part insisted that he was single in his marriage contract with Tina She lived with Eduardo and dutifully performed her duties as his wife, believing
because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid because he all the while that he was her lawful husband. For two years or so
had not heard anything from Rubylus for 20 years. until Eduardo heartlessly abandoned her, Tina had no inkling that he was
 The lower court found Manuel guilty of bigamy he was sentenced to 6 years and already married to another before they were married. Tina was an innocent
10 months of minimum and 10 years as maximum and was directed to indemnify victim of the petitioner’s chicanery and heartless deception, the fraud
private complainant Tina Gandalera an amount of P200,000 as moral damages, consisting not of a single act alone, but a continuous series of acts.
plus suit.
 Manuel insisted that he was not criminally liable of bigamy because he acted in The Court thus declares that the petitioner’s acts are against public policy as
good faith and without malicious intent. they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution, good morals and
the interest and general welfare of society.

The Court rules that the petitioner’s collective acts of fraud and deceit before,
during and after his marriage with the private complainant were willful,
deliberate and with malice and caused injury to the latter. That she did not
sustain any physical injuries is not a bar to an award for moral damages.

Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

PE V. PE  Lolita Pe was 24 years old, unmarried. The petition is based on Article 21

 Alfonso Pe is married. He was an adoptive son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco, a
collateral relative of Lolita’s Father. He was regarded as a member of their family.
 Alfonso frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach
him how to pray the rosary.
 The two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine trysts
not only in the town of Gasan but also in Boac where Lolita used to teach in a
barrio school.
 There is no doubt that the claim of plaintiffs for damages is based on the
fact that defendant, being a married man, carried on a love affair with
Lolita Pe thereby causing plaintiffs injury in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs and public policy
 The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable
considering the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he has committed an
  The rumors about their love affairs reached the ears of Lolita's parents. Since injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and
then defendant was forbidden from going to their house and from further seeing public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code.
Lolita.
 Alfonso was forbidden from going to their house and from further seeing Lolita.
The plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings against Alfonso.
 Their relationship continued nonetheless.
 Lolita was staying with her brothers and sisters at their residence at Quezon City.
Lolita disappeared from said house.
 Plaintiffs found a note on a crumpled piece of paper inside Lolita's aparador. Said
note was in a handwriting recognized to be that of defendant's. In English it reads:

“Honey, suppose I leave here on Sunday night, and that's 13th of this month and we
will have a date on the 14th, that's Monday morning at 10 a.m.”

NATIVIDAD V.  Elsa Natividad and Ronald Tunac grew up together in Barangay Quiling, Talisay,
TUNAC Batangas.
 At age nineteen (19), the two became lovers.
 One day, Ronald asked Elsa to go with him to his boarding house in Pasig City.
Upon arrival at the boarding house, they found no one there. Ronald started
kissing Elsa until he succeeded in making love with her. Elsa cried at the loss of
her virginity, but Ronald appeased her by promising to marry her.
 Their intimate relations continued, resulting in Elsa getting pregnant sometime
in June 1992. Ronald reassured her, again promising her marriage.
 Unfortunately, on December 19, 1992, Elsa gave birth to a premature baby which
died after five (5) hours in the incubator.
 It seems that after Elsa's miscarriage, a marked change in Ronald's attitude
towards the former occurred. In January of 1993, the Natividads confronted the
Tunacs. In that meeting, Ronald informed Elsa that he no longer wanted to get
married to her.
 Our laws do not provide for a right to relief for cases arising purely from a
breach of one's promise to marry another.
Article 21 of the Civil Code:
Moral Seduction – contemplated as one where the defendant is in a position
of moral ascendancy in relation to the plaintiff.
 No moral seduction was employed by Ronald, much less by his parents.
From the narration of the trial court, the evident conclusion is that the two
became lovers before they engaged in any sexual intercourse.
Marriage plans were in fact arranged between the families of the parties. That
their relationship turned sour afterwards, or immediately after Elsa's
miscarriage, is already beyond the punitive scope of our laws. This is simply a
case of a relationship gone awry.

Petitioners: They are suing respondents not merely because Elsa became pregnant
but because Ronald reneged on his promise to marry her after their agreement had
already been much publicized in their town.

HERMOSISIMA V. CA  Respondent filed a complaint for 1)the acknowledgment of her and 2)support for
the child and 3)for breach of promise to marry
 Petitioner 1)acknowledged the child 2) oppressed willingness to support the child
but 3) denied that promise to marry the respondent
 Petitioner is 10years younger than the respondent
 They were engaged, respondent gave up teaching and became a life time
insurance underwriter
 Breach of promise to marry is not actionable wrong as has been definitely
decided in the case of De Jesus vs. Syquia, 58 Phil., 866. Further, in the light
of the clear and manifest intent of our law making body not to sanction
actions for breach of promise to marry, the award of moral damages made
by the lower courts is, accordingly, untenable
 The Court of Appeals, rely its decision on the award of moral damages on
paragraph 3 of Article 2219 of the Civil Code: . . . Moral damages may be
  They had sexual intercourse and upon learning that she is pregnant Hermosisima
promised to marry her
 The child was born on June 1954, Chris Hermosisima
 Petitioner married one Romancita Perez on July 1954
 Spanish Civil Code Art 43 and 44 permitted the recovery of damages for BPM
 RTC decided in favor of Respondent and ordered the Petitioner to damages
 CA affirmed the decision of RTC, held Petitioner liable for seduction
W-O-N moral damages are recoverable under our laws on Breach of Contract to
Marriage?
BAKSH VS. CA  On October 27, 1987 - private respondent is twenty-two years old, single, Filipino
and a pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her
community;
 Petitioner is an Iranian citizen(29 years old) residing at Dagupan City
 The latter courted and proposed to marry her. She then accepted his love on the
condition that they would get married. They therefore agreed to get married after
the end of the school semester
 Petitioner visited the private respondent's parents in Bañaga, Pangasinan to
secure their approval to the marriage.
 The petitioner forced her to live with him in the Lozano Apartments. She was a
virgin before she began living with him.
 However, a week before the filing of the complaint, the petitioner's attitude
towards her started to change. He maltreated and threatened to kill her. As a
result of such maltreatment, she sustained injuries.
 During a confrontation, petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and
asked her not to live with him anymore and the petitioner is already married to
someone living in Bacolod City.
 The petitioner, in her counterclaim admitted only the personal circumstances of
the parties as averred in the complaint and denied the rest of the allegations
either for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth thereof or because the true facts are those alleged as his Special and
Affirmative Defenses.
 Private respondent then prayed to pay her
 The petitioner appealed the decision of trial court in the
 CA. However, the CA affirmed the decision of lower court in toto.
recovered in the following and analogous cases: xxx (3) Seduction,
abduction, rape or other lascivious acts
 However, the language used in said paragraph strongly indicates that the
"seduction" therein contemplated is the crime punished as such in Article
337 and 338 of the Revised Penal Code, which does not exist in the present
case. The Court was unable to say that petitioner is morally guilty of
seduction, not only because he is approximately ten (10) years younger
than the complainant — who around thirty-six (36) years of age, and as
highly enlightened as a former high school teacher and a life insurance
agent are supposed to be — when she became intimate with petitioner,
then a mere apprentice pilot, but also because, the court of first instance
found that, complainant "surrendered herself" to petitioner because, she
was "overwhelmed by her love" for him, and she "wanted to bind" "by
having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of
clergy."
 SC affirmed the decision of the CA but eliminated the moral damages
 The Court held that Gashem is liable to pay for damages in favor of Marilou
based on the Art. 21 of the Civil Code.
 Prior decisions of this Court clearly suggest that Article 21 may be applied
in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of moral
seduction.
 The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong. Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the
New Civil Code the provisions that would have made it so. Thus, the said
Code contains a provision, Article 21, which is designed to expand the
concept of torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate
legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible
for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute
books.
 The respondent Court found that it was the petitioner's "fraudulent and
deceptive protestations of love for and promise to marry plaintiff that made
her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to live with him on
the honest and sincere belief that he would keep said promise, and it was
likewise these fraud and deception on appellant's part that made plaintiff's
parents agree to their daughter's living-in with him preparatory to their
supposed marriage."
  W/N: Breach of promise to marry can award damages
WASSMER V. VELEZ  On August 23, 1954, Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco Velez applied for a license
to contract marriage. The license was issued and the wedding set for September
4, 1954.
 Preparations began with invitations printed and distributed to relatives, friends
and acquaintances; all apparel for the bride, maid of honor and flower girl were
purchased and prepared. A matrimonial bed with accessories was bought, bridals
howers were given and gifts were received.
 On September 2, 1954, two days before the wedding, 28 year old Fracisco left a
note for Beatriz stating:
“Dear Bet-
Will have to postpone the wedding- My mother opposes it. Am leaving on the Convair
today.
Please do not ask too many people about the reason why-That would only create a
scandal.”
 Lastly, his profession of love and promise to marry were empty words
directly intended to fool, dupe, entice, beguile and deceive the poor woman
into believing that indeed, he loved her and would want her to be his life's
partner. He wants nothing but pure lust which he wanted satisfied by a
Filipina who honestly believed that by accepting his proffer of love and
proposal of marriage, she would be able to enjoy a life of ease and security.
Petitioner clearly violated the Filipino's concept of morality and brazenly
defied the traditional respect Filipinos have for their women.
Article 21 of the New Civil Code
 The wedding which was formally set, with preparations made and friends
and family invited, only to be cancelled to days before the ceremony is
construed as contrary to good customs for which damages can be
demanded.
 Francisco, by his unreasonable withdrawal from the planned ceremony,
defied the good customs of the Philippines.