G.R. No.

97336 February 19, 1993

GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents.

Facts:
Private respondent Gonzales filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Baksh for the alleged
violation of their agreement to get married. Gonzales is 22 years old, single, Filipino and of good
moral character and reputation duly respected in her community. Petitioner Baksh is an Iranian male
citizen residing at Dagupan City, and is an exchange student taking a medical course at the Lyceum
Northwestern Colleges.

Baksh courted and proposed to marry Gonzales. She accepted his love on the condition that they
would get married. Thus, an agreement to marry was formed between them. Baksh then visited
Gonzales’ parents in Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage. The parents gladly approved.

Because of his persuasive promise to marry her, Baksh and Gonzales developed a romantic
relationship that soon became known to their mutual acquaintances and community. The public
character of this romantic relationship is evidenced by a photograph of Gonzales with Baksh, taken
in public and showing the two in loving and tender poses.

Because of his persuasive promise to marry her, Gonzales also agreed to living with him and agreed
to be deflowered by him. Their living arrangement soon turned hostile, however, when Baksh allegedly
forced Gonzales to continue living with him while delaying marriage. He allegedly went as far as tying
her to the bed and giving her sleep medications to keep her unconscious from morning until
afternoon. Their cohabitation soon resulted in a pregnancy, which Baksh allegedly forced Gonzales
to abort.

Distressed, Gonzales urged Baksh to fulfill his promise and marry her already. However, Baksh later
revealed to her that he was already married to a girl in Bacolod City and thus cannot and will not fulfill
his promise. Soon after this revelation, Gonzales, aggrieved, filed a complaint for damages against
Baksh under Article 21 of the Civil Code.

Issue/s:
Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article
21 of the Civil Code.

Petitioner’s (Baksh) Argument/s:

1. Baksh denies Gonzales’ allegations of him entering into any agreement to marry her. But
assuming arguendo that he did promise to marry her, Article 21 is not applicable to him. He
is a foreigner and is not conversant with Filipino customs, traditions and culture. As an Iranian
Moslem, he is not familiar with Catholic and Christian ways. He stresses that even if he had
made a promise to marry her, the subsequent failure to fulfill the same is excusable or tolerable
because of his Moslem upbringing; he then alludes to the Muslim Code which purportedly
allows a Muslim to take four (4) wives and concludes that on the basis thereof, the trial court
erred in ruling that he does not possess good moral character.
Respondent’s (Gonzales) Argument/s:
1. Gonzales suffered damages in the form of a besmirched reputation in her community and loss
of her virginity (which she values highly due to her conservative values as a Filipina) as a result
of her reliance on Baksh’s false promise to marry her. Relying on this promise, she agreed to
being deflowered by Baksh, going out with him in public as intimate romantic partners, and
living with him in his apartment. Baksh acted contrary to the Filipino morals that were upheld
by Gonzales and her family. He misled not only Gonzales, but also her parents, who, on the
basis of his false representation to marry their daughter, allowed their daughter to live with
him as preparation for marriage and who also made preparations and announcements for the
wedding. Thus, Gonzales is entitled to damages from Baksh under Article 21.

Ruling:
Yes, damages may be recovered in this case on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code. However,
damages that will be awarded are not based on a breach of promise to marry, because a breach of
promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However, Baksh committed a moral wrong,
specifically moral seduction, for which Article 21 was created to grant adequate legal remedy.

In the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envisioned by the Commission responsible for
drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be
governed by the Revised Penal Code, while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article
2176 of the Civil Code. In between these opposite spectrums are injurious acts which, in the absence
of Article 21, would have been beyond redress. Article 21 fills that vacuum.

In the context of this case, the Revised Penal Code cannot be invoked as it punishes only criminal
seduction through Article 337 or 338. Neither can Article 2176 of the Civil Code, a provision on quasi-
delict, be invoked as it only punishes negligent (as opposed to willful) acts or omissions.

Article 21 is broad enough to provide adequate legal remedy for damages sustained from injurious
actions that are not criminal in nature but willfully done nonetheless:

“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.”

One of such injurious actions is moral seduction.

The Court defines moral seduction as an inducement made by a man against a woman to depart from
the path of virtue by his use of some species of arts, persuasions and wiles, which are calculated to
have and do have that effect, and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the sexual
embraces of her seducer.

According to the Court, Baksh’s act of false representation to marry Gonzales falls under moral
seduction and therefore also falls under Article 21 of the Civil Code. Based on Baksh’s actions and
also his condescending remarks against the economic background and intelligence of Gonzales during
the course of the action, the Court ruled that his profession of love and promise to marry were empty
words directly intended to fool, dupe, entice, beguile and deceive the poor woman into believing that
indeed, he loved her and would want her to be his life's partner. Damages may thus be awarded to
Gonzales under Article 21, based on the damages she sustained from Baksh’s moral seduction.