Case Name Bunag v CA

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 101749| July 10, 1992

Topic Breach of promise to marry
NCC 21
Doctrine The actions of the petitioner in forcibly abducting the private respondent, engaging in sexual
activity with her against her will, and then promising to marry her in order to avoid criminal
liability, only to break that promise after living with her for 21 days, unquestionably constitute
acts against morality and good customs.
Parties involved Petitioner: CONRADO BUNAG, JR.
Respondents: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, First Division, and ZENAIDA B. CIRILO
Ponente Regalado, J.
General Summary On the afternoon of September 8, 1973, defendant-appellant Conrado Bunag, Jr. brought the
plaintiff-appellant, Zenaida Cirilo, to a hotel/motel where they had sexual intercourse. Later
that evening, the defendant-appellant brought the plaintiff-appellant to the house of his
grandmother in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where they lived together as husband and wife for
21 days, or until September 29, 1973. On September 10, 1973, defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr.
and plaintiff-appellant Cirilio applied for a marriage at the Local Civil Registrar of Bacoor,
Cavite. On October 1, 1973, after leaving plaintiff-appellant, defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr.
filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a marriage license.

Plaintiff-appellant contends that on the afternoon of September 8, 1973, defendant-appellant

Bunag, Jr., together with an unidentified male companion, abducted her in the vicinity of the
San Juan de Dios Hospital in Pasay City and brought her to a motel where she was raped.

As a result, the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor and the Court of Appeals found that Bunag Jr.
raped Cirilo and promised to marry her, and was ordered to pay for the damages. Bunag Jr.
appeals the order of the Bacoor RTC and CA as he argued that he did not rape Cirilo as it was a
mutual plan of elopement and agreement to marry.

Facts
● On the afternoon of September 8, 1973, Conrad Bunag Jr. brought Zenaida Cirilio to the Holiday Hotel in Pasay
where they had intercourse, and the night of that day, they went to the house of Bunag Jr.’s grandmother Juana
de Leon in Pamplona, Las Piñas
● On September 10, 1973, Bunag, Jr. and Cirilio filed their respective applications for a marriage license with the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Bacoor, Cavite.
● On September 29, 1973, after living with Cirilio for 21 days at the house of his grandmother, Bunag Jr. left and
never returned.
● On October 1, 1973, Bunag Jr. filed an affidavit withdrawing his marriage application.
● On October 3, 1973, Cirilio went home to her family, ashamed and could not sleep because of the deception
made by Bunag Jr.
● A complaint for damages for alleged breach of promise to marry was filed by Cirilo against petitioner Conrado
Bunag, Jr. and his father, Conrado Bunag Sr.
● Proceedings:
o Cirilio’s side:
Cirilo claims that on September 8, 1973, Bunag Jr. kidnapped her near the San Juan De Dios hospital
along with an unidentified male companion. She claims that Bunag tricked her into believing that he only
wanted to talk to her at the Aristocrat Restaurant because, despite being “sweethearts,” they had a fight
two weeks earlier. After being raped, Cirilo begged to return home, but Bunag refused and stated she
could only do so once they were married as he intended to marry her. They then proceeded to Bunag's
grandmother's house in Las Piñas, lived as husband and wife, and applied for a marriage license.
However, Bunag left on 29 September 1973 and never returned. Bunag Jr. withdrew his marriage
 application, so Cirilo had to go home ashamed and could not sleep or eat from the deceit she
experienced.

o Bunag Jr’s side:

Bunag's version denies the abduction and rape and claims that on 8 September 1973, he and Cirilo
intended to elope due to Bunag Jr.’s father's disapproval of marriage plans. He confirmed that they
checked in together at the Holiday Hotel and proceeded to Las Piñas. However, Bunag Jr. alleges to have
withdrawn his application for a marriage license due to Cirilo's threats to his life and disagreements over
money.

o The decision of the court:

On August 20, 1983, on a finding, inter alia, that petitioner had forcibly abducted and raped private
respondent, the trial court rendered a decision 4 ordering petitioner Bunag, Jr. to pay private respondent
P80,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, P20,000.00 by way of temperate
damages, and P10,000.00 for and as attorney's fees, as well as the costs of suit. Defendant Conrado
Bunag, Sr. was absolved from any and all liability.

● Cirilio appealed to the Court of Appeals that Bunag Jr.’s father should be liable and was denied.
● Bunag Jr. appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that he did not rape Cirilio and should not pay for the
damages for breach of promise to marry and was denied.
● Bunag Jr. filed for Motion for Reconsideration and was denied.
● Bunag Jr. then filed a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court with the following arguments:
o The lower court erred in failing to consider vital exhibits, testimonies, and incidents for the petitioner’s
defense, resulting in the misapprehension of facts and violative of the law in preparation of judgments;
and
o The lower court erred in the application of the proper law and jurisprudence by holding that there was
forcible abduction with rape, not just a simple elopement and an agreement to marry, and in the award
of excessive damages

Issue/s
● W/n the defendant-appellant should pay for the damages since his action involves a breach of promise to marry

Ruling
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, and the assailed judgment and resolution are hereby
AFFIRMED.
● Yes. Bunag Jr. is liable for the damages.

Reasoning
● In light of the facts of the case at hand, the actions of the petitioner in forcibly abducting the private respondent,
engaging in sexual activity with her against her will, and then promising to marry her in order to avoid criminal
liability, only to break that promise after living with her for 21 days, unquestionably constitute acts against
morality and good customs. These gravely irresponsible and abhorrent acts unquestionably require and amply
support the payment of moral and exemplary damages, in accordance with Article 21 in regard to Paragraphs 3
and 10 of the Civil Code, Article 2219, and Articles 2229 and 2234.
o Article 21 of the Civil Code provides that "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."
o Article 2219 provides that "Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35."
 o Article 2229 provides that "Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages.”
o Article 2234 provides that "While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the
plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court
may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.”

Separate Opinions (if any)

● N/a

Relevance to the topic

●