996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Tejano ve. Coust of Appeal _ Plaintiff Santos duly appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the latter ultimately decided the cas, holding with the Tower court that no case of action was shown to compel recognition of a child as yet unborn, nor for its support, bout decreed thatthe complaint did state a cause of action for damages, premised on Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, prescribing as follows: “hen. 21. Any person who wilfully causes lose oF Injury to another In al manter that is contrary to mor toms oF public poley shall compensate the ate The Court of Appeals, therefore, entered judgment set- ting aside the dismissal and directing the court of origin to proceed with the case, “Defendant, in turn, appented to this Court, pleading that actions for breach of « promise to marry are not Permissible in this jurisdiction, and invoking the rulings SF ths Court in Estopa vs. lansay, LoS, September 430, 1900; Hemosisima ve. Court of" Appeis, L628, anuary 2, 1962; and De Jean vs, S7Qaia 58 PRI 86. Ne tind this appeal meritorious. 1 holding that the complaint stated a cause of action ton earsages, under Article Dl above meatone, the Court of Appeas relied upon sad quite from the memorandum Submited bythe Code Commission to the Lesslature in 1940 to suppor the orignal daft of the Civil Code.” Re ferring to Article 8 ofthe draft (aow Article 2 of the Coie)y the Commision stated “But the Cade Commision has gone farther than te sphere of women deine or determines My Patve uw” Puls Sis" hee are cums eps Ip The aur: whik lene {2°many iinet ‘por romes een ve hou hey ae aut suffered material tog mera nur, the Coma 10 fan deemed coy the iret of Soe, fo I Comore inthe propel Cave the follwing al: ron whe ify cae ns oF in Bauglr tat i esteny moras foot certo or pbc ply shall compete the ter {fre dame “hn, samgie i sora ela the ‘omine of args eter ar Howe" “Toe git Boome preaunt Under the Present iw VOL. 18, DECEMBER 17, 1966 997 Tanjanco ve. Court of Appeate ‘ere I no crime, ae the gil Se above eighteen years of age Neither can tay civil ston for breach of promive of mariage be filed. ‘Therefore, though the grievous moral trong haa be commited, and thongh the gir and her family have suffered Ieaelable moral damage, sbe an her parents cannot ring tmy action for damages.” 'Bat under the proposed article Phe tnd her parenta would have such a right of sein ‘The Contt of Appeals seems to have everlooked that the example set forih in the Code Commission's spemerag dum refers to tort upon a minor who has beer Geduced.) The essential feture is seduction, that Jaf law J more than ‘mere sexual intercourse, or a bresel of a promise of mar- Flags it connotes essentially the Idea of del, enticement, ‘superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the swducer to which the woman has yielded (U.S. va, Buena- ventura, 27 Phil. 121; US. ys. ANlante, 9 Phil. 595), It has been ruled in the Buenaventura ease (euprn) that — ‘To constitute seduction there must in all eases be sorhe satel rio nave ond fhe wom Sa a a seus othe promise her duconet” Wah cent terete is from muta tive, chee i bo reduction (43 Cont Dig. tt. Sednclon, bar 18)."She ust be induced to depart from the Fath sf iin by the’ ue" of some species of aris, persuasions and wiles, Which ‘te ealeated to ave soo have that effec. and which te fle fn her ultimately submitting her person to the sexual em: trae of her aeducer” (27 Pil 333)" ‘And in American Jurisprudence we find "On the other hand, n a action by the woman, the entice: tment, ersunsion or deception i th ettnce of the inary: and mere’ proot of intercourse (slnaufiient to warrant Te very tall such cases would tend tothe demoralzaton of the {male sex and wold be a reward for unehaslty By which ft edventreaen wold be swift to Protit” (AY Am Jur, Bearing these principles in mind, let us examine the com- plait. The materist allegations there are as follow “L_ That the paint Geof legal age, ainele, and residing