643 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Wassmer ve, Volos ‘This question before Us isnot new, for in the recent ease of the Cty of Manila and the City Asseseor of Manila vs. ‘The Board of Assessment Appeals, etal. (L-18784, April 30,1964), We ruled that the City of Mania js a corporation adversely affected by the decision of the Board of Assess ment Appeals. The city charters of Manila and Cebu have Similar provisions in respect to benefits derived fram the collection and levy of real property taxes, We find no rea- son to deviate from this ruling in the present ease. Accord ingly, We hold that the City of Ceba may validly appeal ‘rom the decision of the City Board of Ascessment Appeals. ‘As to the personality ofthe Municipal Board to represent the City of Cebu in this sui, suffice it to say that Sec. 158 of Commonvrealth Act No. 6 expressly vests in the Mfs- ricipal Board the authority to appeal from the decision ff the City Astesior to the Board of Assesament Appeals. ‘This indicates legisntive Intent to lodge in the Municipal Board the right to represent the Cty in an appeal from ‘an adverse deislon of the Board of Assessment Appeals. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set ‘aside and the case remanded to the Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings, No costs. So ordered. Bongzon, C.., Bautieta Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, JBL, Barrore, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makatintal and Zaldivar, J2, concur. Decision act aside ond case remanded to Court of Tax Appeals for further proceedings. No. L20089, December 26, 1964 Brarnz P. WASsomn, plaintff-appelee, we, FRANCISCO X. Vrusz, defendant appellant. Damagte: Breach of promi to marry; When actionable serongOndinariy. a ere breach of promise to marry Ie ct ‘sr astonale wrong” But to formaly net 2 wedding and 0 ‘ough al the neessury. preparations and pblelty, only 'o vali ot aff whem the matrmony i aboat fo be sien, [i uit afferent. "Thi ts palyaly and unfuntfialy contrary to food customs, for which the ering Promloor must be bed speweria eden n acrdance wit Avie 21 of the ‘VOL. 12, DECEMBER 25, 1964 G49 Wasemer va. Velez ‘Some; Same; Same; Moral ond czemplary damages may be worded in an ectionable breach. of promise muit--When breach of promise to marry ie aconable under Arte 21 of the Cull Code, moral damager may be awarded under Article 2219(10) of the wuld Code." Exemplary damages may also br warded under Article 2282 of eid Code where ft is proven ‘hat the defendant clearly acted ina wanton, relent and op- preaive manner, Pleading ond practie: Affidevite: Affideit of merte in Petition for relief mutt state facts eomttting defenterha af fidavit of merits stpporting «petition for reli from jeden! ast sate facts constituting svald defence. Where mich a= fldasit merely sates emalusions or opinions H's aot valid Same; Trial by commissioner; Clerk of court nay be valid ly designated The procedure of designating the clerk of court 1h commiaioner to receiv evidence it santioned by Rule (Gow ule 88) of the Rates of Cour commissioner not necessary ‘chert hea fa fendint' eranet to the designation of the clerk of curt as ‘ammistaner to revive evidence isnot macesnty where Be was elaed in-defnat and thes ad'no standing in Court APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance ‘of Rizal (Quezon City Branch). Caluag, J. 1 The facta are stated in the opinion of the Court, ‘olandoni & Jamir for defendant-appelant, Samson 8, Alcantara for plaintittappeliee. BeyozoN, 3, J. ‘The facts that culminated in this ease start with dreams ‘and hopes, followed by appropriate planning and serious en- eavors, but terminated in frustration and, what is worse, tomplete public homliation. Francisco X. Velez and Beatrie P. Wasemer, following. ‘their mutual promise of love, decided to get married and et September 4, 1954 as the big day. "On. September 2. 1964 Veles left this note for hie bride-to-be: Dear Bet — “Wi have to postpone wedding — My mother op- eae it Am leaving 00 the Convair today