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

TICKLER:

DECEIT AND FRAUD AS GROUNDS FOR SUING SOMEONE WHO BROKE THE PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE

DOCTRINE:

ART 21, NCC: Any person who wilfully 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.

ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.

Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA G.R. No. 97336, 19 February 1993

FACTS:

In August 1986, while working as a waitress in Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Marilou Gonzales,
then 21 years old, met Gashem Shookat Baksh, a 29 year old exchange student from Iran who
was studying medicine in Dagupan. The two got really close and intimate. On Marilou’s
account, she said that Gashem later offered to marry her at the end of the semester.

Marilou then introduced Gashem to her parents where they expressed their intention to get
married. Marilou’s parents then started inviting sponsors and relatives to the wedding.
Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment where they had sexual
intercourse. But in no time, their relationship went sour as Gashem began maltreating Marilou.

Gashem eventually revoked his promise of marrying Marilou and he told her that he is already
married to someone in Bacolod City. Marilou went home and later sued Gashem for damages.
The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in moral damages. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

On appeal, Gashem averred that he never proposed marriage to Marilou and that he cannot be
adjudged to have violated Filipino customs and traditions since he, being an Iranian, was not
familiar with Filipino customs and traditions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.

HELD:

Yes. Gashem is liable to pay for damages in favor of Marilou not really because of
his breach of promise to marry her but based on Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides:
Any person who wilfully 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.

Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit and
fraud employed by Gashem that constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code.

Gashem’s blatant disregard of Filipino traditions on marriage and on the reputation of Filipinas
is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy. The Supreme Court also elucidated that
Article 21 was meant to expand the concepts of torts and quasi delict. It is meant to cover
situations such as this case where the breach complained of is not strictly covered by existing
laws. It was meant as a legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books –
such as the absence of a law penalizing a the breach of promise to marry.

Petitioner clearly violated the Filipino's concept of morality and so brazenly defied the
traditional blatant disregard of Article 19 of the Civil Code which directs every person to act
with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his obligations.

No foreigner must be allowed to make a mockery of our laws, customs and traditions.
The pari delicto rule does not apply in this case for while indeed, the private respondent may
not have been impelled by the purest of intentions, she eventually submitted to the petitioner
in sexual congress not out of lust, but because of moral seduction. In fact, it is apparent that
she had qualms of conscience about the entire episode for as soon as she found out that the
petitioner was not going to marry her after all, she left him. She is not, therefor, in pari delicto
with the petitioner. Pari delicto means "in equal fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal in
guilt or in legal fault." At most, it could be conceded that she is merely in delicto.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the challenged decision, the instant petition is
hereby DENIED, with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.