TOPIC: Human Relations (19-36, New Civil Code)

TICKLER:

LIES AND DECEPTION IS INEXCUSABLE AS CLAIM FOR MORAL DAMAGES

DOCTRINE:

BAD FAITH does not simply mean negligence or bad judgment. It involves a state of mind dominated by

ill-will or motive. It implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest

purpose or some moral obliquity.

Moral damages are a form of compensation for the "physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury" 50 unjustly sustained by a person.51 They are
awarded when: (1) there is a physical, mental or psychological injury clearly sustained
by the claimant; (2) a wrongful act or omission is factually established; (3) the act or
omission is the proximate cause of the injury; and (4) the award of damages is based
on any of the cases stated in Article 221952 of the Civil Code.53 cralaw:lawlibrar

ARTICLE 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any
other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the
latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him

Facts:

Jan, a German citizen, met Jhonna, a Filipina, thru a common friend. In due time, he courted
her, and they agreed to marry. The two agreed to get married, and Jan sent P500,000.00 for the
purpose of buying a lot for their conjugal home.

Jhonna, soon discovered, however, that Jan is still married to his third wife, despite telling
her that he was already divorced. He also made Jhonna believe that his real name is Roger
Brawner.

Jhonna called off the marriage, and refused to return the money given to her by Jan, calling it
a gift. On the other hand, Jan sought the return of the money, filing a case for damages under
Articles 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code.
 He argued that Jhonna had repeatedly assured him that she would marry him, so that he would
send her money, only to break up with him after sending the money. These acts amounted to
fraud,or at the very least, unjust enrichment.

The RTC found Jhonna and her parents liable for damages, and ordered them to pay Jan moral
damages and attorneys fees.

The CA affirmed the RTC judgment.

Issue:

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

Whether or not a party who acted in bad faith may file an action for damages under Art. 21 of
the New Civil Code on human relations.

Ruling:

A breach of promise to marry is not actionable.

While the Court in Wassmer v. Velez as a result of a canceled marriage, it did so only because in
that case, preparations for the wedding had already been made, and the bride canceled the
wedding two days before the wedding.

The award in Wassmer is not because of the breach of promise to marry, but on Article 21 of
the Civil Code. It ruled that, while a breach of promise to marry is not actionable, walking out of
a wedding, two days prior to the event, after all had been prepared, was quite different. The
defendant’s act was deemed palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs”, for which
the award of damages was proper.

“What respondent fails to consider however, is that the human relations provisions in the New
Civil Code presupposes that the party seeking damages must have acted in good faith.

In Wassmer, this Court awarded damages because the party who sought damages-the-bride-
to-be-did not perpetrate lies, fraud, or deception, which would have barred discovery. This is
the reason why the groom-to-be’s conduct in Wassmer was considered unjust and contrary to
good customs. Had the bride-to-be been in bad faith, the human relations provisions would not
have applied.
This case is different. Here, petitioner called off the engagement after she had discovered
respondent’s lies and deception. As the Court of Appeals found, respondent’s actions were
tainted with fraud and deceit; he did not have the purest intentions in marrying petitioner. He
lied about about his marital status, and even hid his true name from the petitioner. These
acts suffice to justify the wedding’s cancellation. Finding out that one’s betrothed is still
married another person, and that they are not who they say they are, are enough reasons to
conclude bad faith.

Since respondent himself did not act in good faith, he cannot claim damages under the New
Civil Code. The unjust enrichment principle under Article 22 only applies if the property is
acquired without legal grounds. Here, respondent gave petitioner P500,000.00 as a gift to
help her and her family with their possible eviction from their home. The money being a gift,
petitioner is correct to say she cannot be compelled to return the P500,000.00 given to her.

“Beyond this public policy, however, is the recognition that the right to marry is a fundamental
human right.

Marriage is a social institution that creates a permanent bond between individuals, and the law
grants them rights and obligations unique to married couples. The choice of whether to marry-
and necessarily, whom to marry-is a personal decision that a person makes for himself. This
individual choice must be made, as much as possible, completely free from any external
pressures. After all, marriage can and will change a person’s life.

Thus, choosing a person to marry is intimately connected to a person’s autonomy. Any State
interest in the institution of marriage must not lead to an unjustified intrusion into one
individual’s autonomy and human dignity. It must only be done when public interest is
imperiled. It is not within the courts’ competence to reach too far into intimate relations.
Courts; through litigation, should not dictate on or even pressure a person into accepting a life
of marriage with a person they reject. Courts must, as much as possible, refrain meddling in
these personal affairs.

The Constitution directs the State to “[value] the dignity of every human person and
[guarantee] full respect for human rights. Freedom of the choice to associate or to identify
forms part of one’s dignity. As much as the Family Code provides the “nature, consequences
and incidents of marriage are governed by law and subject to stipulation, one’s choice of
intimate relations is also protected by the liberty and human dignity clauses of the Constitution.

An individual has the autonomy to choose whom to marry, or whether to marry at all. They
must be free to make that choice without any fear of legal retribution of liability. The decision
on whether to marry is one that should be freely chosen, without pressures of a possible civil
suit should a person realize that their intended partner is not right for them. We recognize
instances when the breach of one’s commitment in an intimate relationship is a consequence of
their realization that marriage may not be the wisest path they could take given their
circumstances.

For this reason, litigation to the sorrows caused by a broken heart and a broken promise must
be discouraged.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is granted. The award of actual damages worth P500,000.00 is
DELETED.

SO ORDERED.