Article 21 and Breach of Promise to Marry

 

Persons 14: Article 21 and Breach of Promise to Marry (lexinmotion)

Art. 21 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.”

At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:

1. Distinguish the causes of action under Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code;
2. Identify cases where breach of promise to marry becomes an actionable wrong;
3. Enumerate instances where volenti non fit injuria should apply.

Articles 19, 20, 21 and 36 of the Civil Code are all considered bar matters under the chapter on Human Relations. For most professors, these are the only things you will need to learn.

Similarities of Art. 20 and 21

1. The law mentions damages in both provisions. The person who causes damage shall be liable to compensate or indemnify the same.

“There is an injury when there is an illegal invasion of a known right. An unlawful act or any act that is contrary to law results in an illegal invasion of a legal right. This right can be the right of a private person or it can be the right or duty of a state in general. 

2. For an action to prosper under Art. 20 or 21, there must be both injury and damage. The latin phrase for that is damnum et injuria.

Question: Can there be an action for loss under Article 21; without injury or situation of damnum absque injuria?

Answer: No. The rule is still damnum et injuria. Damage and injury must be present in order for the cause of action under Art. 21 to prosper. The phrase “loss” or “injury” in the provision simply imply the wider, broader and deeper reach of the law under Art. 21.

In Art. 21 of the Civil Code, the law does not require a violation of the law (opposite to Art. 20). All that the law requires is that there must be a legal act, but this legal act must be against morals, good customs or public policy. This is why an action under Art. 21 of the Civil Code is also called an action CONTRA BONUS MORES or one that is contrary to good morals.

Art. 21 says that the injury of loss must come from a willful act (dapat sinadya at hindi dahil sa kapabayaan).

Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court lays down the GENERAL RULE: The breach of promise of marriage is not an actionable wrong.

The Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled in favor of Apolonio. Both of them (Araceli) were consenting adults and as such, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the facts of the case amount to an action for damages under Art. 21 of the Civil Code. it ruled that Art. 21 of the Code provides that, “Any person who willfully causes loss or damage to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

The Court of Appeals ordered that the case be remanded back to the CFI to proceed with the case. The issue here is whether or not under the facts and circumstances Apolonio is liable for the damages for the breach of promise to marry.

 

“The essential feature is seduction, that in law is more than mere sexual intercourse, or a breach of a promise of marriage; it connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded.” - Supreme Court

The action for breach of promise to marry is never a reward. What the law punishes in cases of breach of promise to marry is the seduction. “There is no seduction kung pareho n’yong ginusto.”

If it is a product of mutual lust, what the law punishes is the idea of deceit, enticement or superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded. Note: The breach of the promise to marry, without seduction, cannot stand.

Pe vs. Pe

The trial court ruled in favor of Alfonso Pe. it concluded that there was simply not enough evidence to hold Alfonso liable. The Supreme Court extends the right to recover damages, not only on the part of the woman but also on the part of the family.

Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals

The lower court ruled in favor of Marilou on the strength of Art. 21 of the Civil Code. it concluded that Marilou would not have given herself had it not been for the promise of marriage made by Gashem. That Gashem deflowered her and that Gashem violated Filipino customs and morals by turning back on the promise of marriage.

The SC ruled that, “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, therefore, 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 must be conceded that she is merely in delicto.”

Wassmer vs. Velez

The issue in this case was whether or not Francisco Velez should be liable for damages for his breach of promise to marry. The SC ruled that, “this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described 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 the defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.”

The general rule is that the breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. The exceptions are:

1. There is seduction - or the man employs deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded;
2. When the promise of marriage is the proximate cause of why a woman would have sex with a man, and the man clearly has no intention to fulfill this promise;
3. When there have been extensive preparations for the wedding and one of the parties walks out when the matrimony is about to be solemnized.

The action for damages is also available on behalf of the family who suffers embarrassment as a result of the willful act that is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy.

There are other actions under Art. 21 and it is wrong to assume that they involve only breaches of promises to marry.

Roberto Reyes vs. Nikko Hotel Manila Garden and Ruby Lim

Reyes is also known as Amay Bisaya (an actor)

The trial court ruled in favor of Miss Lim, declaring that the plaintiff had no business being in the party.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Amay Bisaya and it found Miss Lim and the hotel liable for the way they treated the actor.

In this case, the SC lays down the requisites for an action contra bonus mores. The Court teaches us that for an action under Art. 21 to prosper there must be:

1. Legal act;
2. The act is contrary to moral, good customs, public order and public policy;
3. The act is done with intent to injure

Any injury suffered by Amai Bisaya must be borne by him alone.

In this case, the Supreme Court also wants us to learn about the concept of volenti non fit injuria, meaning, “to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury.” This phrase also means self-inflicted injury or consent to injury. Any person who voluntarily exposes himself to injury, even if he is negligent in doing so, cannot recover damages.

Cerezo vs. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company

The SC applied the principle of volenti non fit injuria

By squatting and pooping inside the trench, he has voluntarily exposed himself to risk and injury. Even if he was negligent, even if it was to answer a call of nature, he went inside the trench on his own, thus, for his own injury, no other person can be liable for damages.