Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964
BETR!" P. #SSMER, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
$RNC!SCO %. &ELE", defendant-appellant.
Jalandoni & Jamir for defendant-appellant.
Samson S. Alcantara for plaintiff-appellee.
BENG"ON, '.P., J.:
The facts that culminated in this case started ith dreams and hopes, folloed b! appropriate plannin"
and serious endeavors, but terminated in frustration and, hat is orse, complete public humiliation.
#rancisco $. %ele& and Beatri& P. 'assmer, folloin" their mutual promise of love, decided to "et
married and set (eptember ), *+,) as the bi" da!. -n (eptember ., *+,) %ele& left this note for his bride-
to-be/
0ear Bet 1
'ill have to postpone eddin" 1 M! mother opposes it. Am leavin" on the Convair
toda!.
Please do not as2 too man! people about the reason h! 1 That ould onl! create a
scandal.
Pa3uin"
But the ne4t da!, (eptember 5, he sent her the folloin" tele"ram/
N-T67N8 C6AN8E0 RE(T A((9RE0 RET9RN7N8 %ER: (--N AP-;-87<E
MAMA PAPA ;-%E .
PA=7N8
Thereafter %ele& did not appear nor as he heard from a"ain.
(ued b! Beatri& for dama"es, %ele& filed no anser and as declared in default. Plaintiff adduced
evidence before the cler2 of court as commissioner, and on April .+, *+,,, >ud"ment as rendered
orderin" defendant to pa! plaintiff P.,???.?? as actual dama"es@ P.,,???.?? as moral and e4emplar!
dama"es@ P.,,??.?? as attorne!As fees@ and the costs.
-n Bune .*, *+,, defendant filed a Cpetition for relief from orders, >ud"ment and proceedin"s and motion
for ne trial and reconsideration.C Plaintiff moved to stri2e it cut. But the court, on Au"ust ., *+,,,
ordered the parties and their attorne!s to appear before it on Au"ust .5, *+,, Cto e4plore at this sta"e of
the proceedin"s the possibilit! of arrivin" at an amicable settlement.C 7t added that should an! of them fail
to appear Cthe petition for relief and the opposition thereto ill be deemed submitted for resolution.C
-n Au"ust .5, *+,, defendant failed to appear before court. 7nstead, on the folloin" da! his counsel
filed a motion to defer for to ee2s the resolution on defendants petition for relief. The counsel stated
that he ould confer ith defendant in Ca"a!an de -ro Cit! 1 the latterAs residence 1 on the possibilit!
of an amicable element. The court "ranted to ee2s counted from Au"ust .,, *+,,.
Plaintiff manifested on Bune *,, *+,D that the to ee2s "iven b! the court had e4pired on (eptember E,
*+,, but that defendant and his counsel had failed to appear.
Another chance for amicable settlement as "iven b! the court in its order of Bul! D, *+,D callin" the
parties and their attorne!s to appear on Bul! *5, *+,D. This time. hoever, defendantAs counsel informed
the court that chances of settlin" the case amicabl! ere nil.
-n Bul! .?, *+,D the court issued an order den!in" defendantAs aforesaid petition. 0efendant has appealed
to this Court. 7n his petition of Bune .*, *+,, in the court a quo defendant alle"ed e4cusable ne"li"ence as
"round to set aside the >ud"ment b! default. (pecificall!, it as stated that defendant filed no anser in
the belief that an amicable settlement as bein" ne"otiated.
A petition for relief from >ud"ment on "rounds of fraud, accident, mista2e or e4cusable ne"li"ence, must
be dul! supported b! an affidavit of merits statin" facts constitutin" a valid defense. F(ec. 5, Rule 5E,
Rules of Court.G 0efendantAs affidavit of merits attached to his petition of Bune .*, *+,, stated/ CThat he
has a "ood and valid defense a"ainst plaintiffAs cause of action, his failure to marr! the plaintiff as
scheduled havin" been due to fortuitous event andHor circumstances be!ond his control.C An affidavit of
merits li2e this statin" mere conclusions or opinions instead of facts is not valid. FCortes vs. Co Bun =im,
;-5+.D, -ct. *?, *+,*@ %asani vs. P. Tarrachand Bros., ;-*,E??, 0ecember .+, *+D?.G
0efendant, hoever, ould contend that the affidavit of merits as in fact unnecessar!, or a mere
surplusa"e, because the >ud"ment sou"ht to be set aside as null and void, it havin" been based on
evidence adduced before the cler2 of court. 7n Province of Pangasinan vs. Palisoc, ;-*D,*+, -ctober 5?,
*+D., this Court pointed out that the procedure of desi"natin" the cler2 of court as commissioner to
receive evidence is sanctioned b! Rule 5) Fno Rule 55G of the Rules of Court. No as to defendantAs
consent to said procedure, the same did not have to be obtained for he as declared in default and thus
had no standin" in court F%ele& vs. Ramas, )? Phil. IEI@ Alano vs. Court of #irst 7nstance, ;-*),,I,
-ctober 5?, *+,+G.
7n support of his Cmotion for ne trial and reconsideration,C defendant asserts that the >ud"ment is
contrar! to la. The reason "iven is that Cthere is no provision of the Civil Code authori&in"C an action
for breach of promise to marr!. 7ndeed, our rulin" in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals F;-*)D.E, (ept.
5?, *+D?G, as reiterated in Estopa vs. Biansay F;-*)I55, (ept. 5?, *+D?G, is that Cmere breach of a promise
to marr!C is not an actionable ron". 'e pointed out that Con"ress deliberatel! eliminated from the draft
of the ne Civil Code the provisions that ould have it so.
7t must not be overloo2ed, hoever, that the e4tent to hich acts not contrar! to la ma! be perpetrated
ith impunit!, is not limitless for Article .* of said Code provides that Can! person ho ilfull! causes
loss or in>ur! to another in a manner that is contrar! to morals, "ood customs or public polic! shall
compensate the latter for the dama"e.C
The record reveals that on Au"ust .5, *+,) plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to contract
marria"e, hich as subse3uentl! issued FE4hs. A, A-*G. Their eddin" as set for (eptember ), *+,).
7nvitations ere printed and distributed to relatives, friends and ac3uaintances FTsn., ,@ E4h. CG. The
bride-to-beAs trousseau, part! drsrses and other apparel for the important occasion ere purchased FTsn.,
I-EG. 0resses for the maid of honor and the floer "irl ere prepared. A matrimonial bed, ith
accessories, as bou"ht. Bridal shoers ere "iven and "ifts received FTsn., D@ E4h. EG. And then, ith
but to da!s before the eddin", defendant, ho as then .E !ears old,/ simpl! left a note for plaintiff
statin"/ C'ill have to postpone eddin" 1 M! mother opposes it ... C 6e enplaned to his home cit! in
Mindanao, and the ne4t da!, the da! before the eddin", he ired plaintiff/ CNothin" chan"ed rest
assured returnin" soon.C But he never returned and as never heard from a"ain.
(urel! this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marr!. As stated, mere breach of promise to marr! is
not an actionable ron". But to formall! set a eddin" and "o throu"h all the above-described
preparation and publicit!, onl! to al2 out of it hen the matrimon! is about to be solemni&ed, is 3uite
different. This is palpabl! and un>ustifiabl! contrar! to "ood customs for hich defendant must be held
anserable in dama"es in accordance ith Article .* aforesaid.
0efendant ur"es in his afore-stated petition that the dama"es aarded ere e4cessive. No 3uestion is
raised as to the aard of actual dama"es. 'hat defendant ould reall! assert hereunder is that the aard
of moral and e4emplar! dama"es, in the amount of P.,,???.??, should be totall! eliminated.
Per e4press provision of Article ..*+ F*?G of the Ne Civil Code, moral dama"es are recoverable in the
cases mentioned in Article .* of said Code. As to e4emplar! dama"es, defendant contends that the same
could not be ad>ud"ed a"ainst him because under Article ..5. of the Ne Civil Code the condition
precedent is that Cthe defendant acted in a anton, fraudulent, rec2less, oppressive, or malevolent
manner.C The ar"ument is devoid of merit as under the above-narrated circumstances of this case
defendant clearl! acted in a Canton ... , rec2less JandK oppressive manner.C This CourtAs opinion,
hoever, is that considerin" the particular circumstances of this case, P*,,???.?? as moral and e4emplar!
dama"es is deemed to be a reasonable aard.
PREM7(E( C-N(70ERE0, ith the above-indicated modification, the loer courtAs >ud"ment is hereb!
affirmed, ith costs.
Bengon! C.J.! Bautista Angelo! "eyes! J.B.#.! Barrera! Paredes! $ion! "egala! %a&alintal! and
'aldivar! JJ.! concur.