APOLONIO TANJANCO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARACELI SANTOS, respondents.

1966-12-17 | G.R. No. L-18630

DECISION Appeal

REYES, J.B.L., J.: VII. Marriage - Breach of Promise to Marry

Facts:

Apolonio promised to marry Araceli after their relationship resulted to a frequent carnal knowledge in
which the latter acceded to. Araceli conceived a child as a result. However, Apolonio broke their
engagement despite knowing the pregnancy.

Subsequently, Araceli filed a complaint for breach of promise to marry and filed an action for support and
damages to the CFI compelling Apolonio to recognize the unborn child that she was bearing. She asked
for a pay of not less than P430.00 a month for her support and that of her baby, plus P100,000.00 in moral
and exemplary damages, plus P10,000.00 attorney's fees. But the Court of First Instance dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Then Araceli appealed on the Court of Appeals. the Court ruled in her favor, and decreed that the
complaint state a cause of action for damages, premised upon the memorandum submitted by the Code
Commission to the Legislature in 1949 regarding Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Article 21, Civil Code of the Philippines: “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."

Now, Apolonio appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the breach of promise to marry by Apolonio Tanjanco constitute a cause of action for
damages under Article 21 of the Family Code of the Philippines

Ruling:

No, it does not constitute a cause of action.

The essential feature in Article 21 Is seduction. Seduction is the idea of deceit, enticement, superior power
or abuse of confidence on the part or the seducer to which the woman has yielded (U.S. vs. Buenaventura,
27 Phil. 121; U.S. vs. Arlante, 9 Phil. 595).

In this case, the act of Araceli for one whole year, a woman of adult age, maintaining intimate sexual
relations with Apolonio is incompatible with the idea of seduction. Here there is voluntariness and mutual
passion; for had she been deceived, she would have cut short all sexual relations upon finding that
defendant did not intend to fulfill his promise to marry. Thus, Araceli’s complaint cannot prosper
considering the element in Article 21. Moreover, the Court of Appeals seems to have overlooked that the
example given by the Code of Commission refers to a tort upon a minor who has been seduced which is
different in this case.
Finally, the dismissal must be understood as without prejudice to whatever actions may correspond to
the child since the child's own rights are not here involved.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and that of the Court of
First Instance is affirmed. No costs.

Article 21, Civil Code of the Philippines

“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."

Excerpt from the Court of Appeals statement:

"But the Code Commission has gone farther than the sphere of wrongs defined or determined by positive
law. Fully sensible that there are countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral
wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, the Commission has
deemed it necessary, in the interest of justice, to incorporate in the proposed Civil Code the following
rule:

'ART. 23. 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 damage.'

"An example will illustrate the purview of the foregoing norm:

'A' seduces the nineteen-year old daughter of 'X'. A promise of marriage either has not been made, or
can not be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Under the present laws, there is no crime, as the girl is
above eighteen years of age. Neither can any civil action for breach of promise of marriage be filed.
Therefore, though the grievous moral wrong has been committed, and though the girl and her family have
suffered incalculable moral damage, she and her parents cannot bring any action for damages. But under
the proposed article, she and her parents would have such a right of action."