652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Wasenar ve. Velez lay. The reason given ig that “there is no provision of ‘the Civil Code authorizing” an action for breach of promise tommarry. Indeed, our ruling in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals (I-14828, Sept. 80, 1960), as reiterated in Estopa ‘vs. Biansay (L-14733, Sept. 80, 190), is that “mere breach ‘of a promise to marry” is not an actionable wrong. We pointed out that Congress deliberately eliminated from the Araft of the new Civil Code the provisions that would have tao, It must not be oberlooked, however, that the extent to Which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with Impunity, s not limitless for Article 21 of said Code pro- vides that “any peraon who wilfully causes loss oF injury ‘to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public pliey shall compensate the latter for the damage: ‘The record reveals that on August 23, 1964 plaintite ‘and defendant applied for a license to contract marriage, hich was subsequently issued (Exhs. A, A-1). ‘Their wed ing was set for September 4, 1854. Invitations were print= fe and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances (sn, 5; Exh. C). The bridetobe's trousseau, party dresses and other apparel forthe important oceasion were purchased (sn., 78).. Dresses forthe mai of honor and the flower inl were prepared. A matrimonial ed, with accessories, ‘was bought, Bridal showers were given and gifts received (Tm, 6; Exh. E). And the, with but two days before the ‘wedding, defendant, who was then 28 years od, simply left 4 note for plaintiff stating: “Will have to postpone wet ding —My mother opposes it xxx" He eaplaned to his home ety in Mindanao, and the next day, the day before the ‘wadding, he wire pintft: "Nothing changed rest assar~ cf returning soon." But he never returned and was never ‘heard from again ‘Surely thie fs not a cage of mere breach of promise to tarry. Ar stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a. wedding and go through all the abovedescribed preparation and pub- Ticty, only to walk out of it when the matrimony it about ‘VOL. 12, DECEMBER 28, 1964 People ve. Contante tw be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and ‘unjusifinbly contrary to good customs for which defendant rust be held answerable in damages in accordance with ‘Article 2 aforesaid Defendant urges in hie aforestated petition that the damages avvaided were excessive. No question is raised as to the avard of actual damages. What defendant would really assert hereunder is thatthe award of moral and exem- Diary damages, in the amount of P25,000.0, should be to tally eliminated Per express provision of Article 2219(10) of the New Ci- vil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the eases men- toned in Article 21 of said Code, As to exemplary damages, defendant contends that the same could not be adjudged against him because under Article 2282 of the New Civil Code the condition precedent is that “the defendant acted in ‘8 wanton, fraudalent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner” The argument ie devold of merit as under the Sbovernarrated circumstances of this case defendant clearly feted ima “wanton x x x, reckless [and] oppressive man- her” ‘This Court's opinion, however, Is that considering the particular circumstances of this case, 715,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages is deemed to be a reasonable award PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the aboveindicated modification, the lower court's judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs Bengzon, Cl, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, JBL, Barrers, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makslintal, and Zeldvar, J. cor “Fuloment affirmed with modification No, M629, December 28, 1964 Poorus oF THE PamiPeiNs, plaintiffappellee, vs. JuL10 ‘CowtaN, defendant-appellant. idence: AUD; Witnesses; Credibility of lit equated swith every of astmnteny Weight nied tot by trial cour ‘cry ecepted=‘The erdiiity ot anal may ery Sri he ected withthe credit of We witness wha bok