Case Digest No.

GASHEEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

and MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents
G. R. No. 97336. February 19, 1993

FACTS:

Petitioner was a medicine student at Lyceum Northwestern Colleges at Dagupan City.

He was an Iranian exchange student and was 29 years old. Respondent was a former
waitress on a luncheonette, and was 22 years old. Petitioner was allegedly the lover of
the respondent, and was said to promise marriage to the latter, which convinced her to
live with him in his apartment. It was even alleged that the petitioner went to the
house of the respondent to inform her family about the marriage on the end of
the semester. However, the marriage did not materialize, with several beatings and
maltreatment experienced by the respondent from the petitioner.

The case was filed in the RTC of Pangasinan, and the decision was held in favor of the
respondent. However, the petitioner claimed that the judgment of the RTC was an error,
for the claims of the respondent are not true, and that he did not know about the custom
of the Filipinos; his acts were in accordance of his custom. The decision of the RTC was
affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal to the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent could claim payment for the damages incurred by the
petitioner.

RULING:

Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However, since the respondent was
proved to have a good moral character, and that she had just let her virginity
be taken away by the petitioner since the latter offered a promise of marriage, then she
could ask for payment for damages. Furthermore, since she let her lover, the petitioner,
“deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to marry was true, and not due to
her carnal desire, then she could have her claims against the petitioner. Moreover, the
father of the respondent had already looked for pigs and chicken for the
marriage reception and the sponsors for the marriage, and then damages were caused
by the petitioner against the respondents, which qualified the claims of the respondent
against the petitioner.