FACTS:

Franciso Velez and Beatriz Wassmer decided to marry and had set the wedding
on September 4, 1954. Necessary preparations were made by Wassmer, only to read a
note from Velez two days before the wedding saying that he had to postpone the
marriage as his mother does not approve of it. He never returned, contrary to a
telegram he sent Wassmer on the day of the wedding saying that nothing has changed
and he will eventually return.
Wassmer filed for damages, and the court ordered the defendant to compensate
the plaintiff by paying moral and exemplary damages. Despite chances for amicable
settlement, defendant was not able to appear in court, and even asserted that there is
no provision in the Civil Code stating that one can be held civilly liable for breaching a
promise to marry another. Defendant also questioned the exemplary and moral
damages awarded.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not breach of promise to marry is actionable.
2. Whether or not award of damages is appropriate.
RULING:
1. Although there is no provision in the Civil Code that provides for the civil
punishment for merely breaching a promise to marry, the case at bar is not
only a mere breach of promise. Thus, although breach of promise to marry is
not actionable, the defendant is still held liable for having violated Article 21 of
the Civil Code which states 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 damages.
2. The award of damages is appropriate as the defendant acted contrary to
Article 21 of the Civil Code by breaching his promise to marry Wassmer,
which caused the latter to make preparations only to be humiliated, thereafter.
Defendant citing that his act of cancelling the wedding was due to fortuitous
event was not proved, but was otherwise described as a reckless action.