Hermosisima v.

CA
G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 Concepcion J., (En banc)
VII. Marriage: Breach of promise to marry Nature of Action: Appeal
Petitioners Respondents
FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.,
Recit Ready Summary
Soledad Cagigas is a thirty six years old former high school teacher in Sibonga
Provincial High School in Cebu and a life insurance agent who met Francisco
Hermosisisa, an apprentice pilot who is ten years younger than her by that time.
Intimacy developed between them, resulting to impregnation of the complainant to Chris
Hermosisima. On October 24, 1954, Cagigas filed a complaint with said of her child,
Chris Hermosisima, as natural child and moral damages for alleged breach of promise
to the petitioner Francisco Hermosisima. Petitioner admitted the paternity of child and
expressed willingness to support the latter, but denied having ever promised to marry
the complainant. The Court of First Instance in Cebu ordered petitioner, on October 27,
1954, to pay, by way of alimony pendente lite, P50.00 a month, which was, on February
16, 1955, reduced to P30.00 a month. An appeal by certiorari was then taken by
Hermosisima, from a decision of Court of Appeals modifying that of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu. On appeal of the petitioner, the CA affirmed the
assailed decision however increased the amount for actual and moral damages.
Facts of the Case
 Soledad Cagigas (complainant) was born in July 1917. She was a teacher in the
Sibonga Provincial High School in Cebu since 1950 and also a life insurance
agent in the City of Cebu.
 Francisco Hermosisima (petitioner) is an apprentice pilot who was almost ten
(10) years younger the complainant.
 Cagigas alleged that they used to go around together and were regarded as
engaged, although Hermosisima had made no promise of marriage prior thereto.
 They developed intimacy with each other and one night in 1953 when after
coming from the movies, they had sexual intercourse in petitioner’s cabin on
board.
 In February 1954, Cagigas advised petitioner that she was pregnant and he
promised of marrying her.
 On June 17, 1954, Soledad gave birth to Chris Hermosisima in a private
maternity clinic.
 Subsequently, on July 24, 1954, defendant married one Romanita Perez.
 Hence, said complaint was passed by Cagigas to claim the moral damages for
alleged breach of promise of the petitioner.
 Petitioner admitted the paternity of child and expressed willingness to support the
latter, but denied having ever promised to marry the complainant.
 On October 27, 1954, petitioner was ordered by the Court of First Instance of
 Cebu to pay, by way of alimony pendente lite, P50.00 a month, which was, on
February 16, 1955, reduced to P30.00 a month.
 An appeal by certiorari was then taken by Hermosisima, from a decision of Court
of Appeals modifying that of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
 CA affirmed the assailed decision however increased the amount for actual and
moral damages. A sum of P1,114.25 - consisting of P144.20, for hospitalization
and medical attendance, in connection with the parturiation, and the balance
representing expenses incurred to support the child - and increased the moral
damages to P7,000.00 was added to the first sentence of the Court of Instance

Issues
WON moral damages are recoverable, under our laws, for breach of promise to marry. -
NO
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
 The court rule that breach of promise to marry is not actionable and has been
definitely decided in the case of De Jesus vs. Syquia (58 Phil., 866) which says
that "the action for breach of promises to marry has no standing in the civil law,
apart from the right to recover money or property advanced . . . upon the faith of
such promise".
 The history of breach of promise suit in the United States and in England has
shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing
women and unscrupulous men. It is this experience which has led to the abolition
of the rights of action in the so-called Balm suit in many of the American States.
But it is also worth noting that in many States, in consequence of years of
experience are doing away with them, may well prove to be a step in
the wrong direction. (Congressional Record, Vol. IV, No. 79, Thursday,
May 19, 1949, p. 2352.) The views thus expressed were accepted by both
houses of Congress. 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
 Thus, the award given by the court for moral damages may be recovered from
the petitioner under the provision of Article 2219, paragraph 3, of the new Civil
Code which quotes:

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(3) Sedution, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts.

 Appearing that because of defendant-appellant's seduction power, plaintiff-

appellee, overwhelmed by her love for him finally yielded to his sexual desires in
spite of her age and self-control, she being a woman after all, we hold that said
defendant-appellant is liable for seduction.

Disposition
CA affirmed petition with increased in the amount for actual and moral damages