FER GRACE CATAYLO NIAGA JD I

WASSMER vs VELEZ
(GR No. L-20089, DECEMBER 26, 1964)

FACTS:
The facts that culminated in this case started with dreams and hopes,
followed by appropriate planning and serious endeavors, but terminated in
frustration and, what is worse, complete public humiliation.
Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer decided to get married on
September 4, 1954, as a result of their mutual promise of love. Beatriz
prepared for the wedding including making and sending of invitations and
other wedding necessities. However, two days before the wedding, on
September 2, 1954, Francisco left a note for his bride-to-be. That his mom
opposed the said wedding and he’s not able to attend their wedding.
Wassmer sued Velez for damages. On April 29, 1955, the Court rendered its
judgment, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff for actual damages,
moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not breach of promise to marry is actionable

RULING:
This is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere
breach of promise to marry is not an actionable. But to formally set a
wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity, only to walk out
of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different.
This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which
defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article
21 which provides in part “any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
And under the law, any violation of Article 21 entitles the injured party to
receive an award for moral damages as properly awarded by the lower court
in this case. Further, the award of exemplary damages is also proper. Here,
the circumstances of this case show that Velez, in breaching his promise to
Wassmer, acted in wanton, reckless, and oppressive manner. This warrants
the imposition of exemplary damages against him.