Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Wassmer Vs

    Uploaded by

    ronald
    Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer were set to be married on September 4, 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Velez left a note postponing the wedding due to his mother's opposition. He did not return and was never heard from again. Wassmer sued for breach of promise to marry. The court ruled that this was an actionable wrong under Article 21 of the Civil Code, as Velez's actions of formally setting a wedding date and allowing preparations to continue, only to back out at the last minute, were unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which he must be held accountable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Wassmer Vs

    Uploaded by

    ronald
    45 views1 page
    Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer were set to be married on September 4, 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Velez left a note postponing the wedding due to his mother's opposition. He did not return and was never heard from again. Wassmer sued for breach of promise to marry. The court ruled that this was an actionable wrong under Article 21 of the Civil Code, as Velez's actions of formally setting a wedding date and allowing preparations to continue, only to back out at the last minute, were unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which he must be held accountable.

    Original Description:

    Civil law case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer were set to be married on September 4, 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Velez left a note postponing the wedding due to his mother's opposition. He did not return and was never heard from again. Wassmer sued for breach of promise to marry. The court ruled that this was an actionable wrong under Article 21 of the Civil Code, as Velez's actions of formally setting a wedding date and allowing preparations to continue, only to back out at the last minute, were unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which he must be held accountable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views1 page

    Wassmer Vs

    Uploaded by

    ronald
    Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer were set to be married on September 4, 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Velez left a note postponing the wedding due to his mother's opposition. He did not return and was never heard from again. Wassmer sued for breach of promise to marry. The court ruled that this was an actionable wrong under Article 21 of the Civil Code, as Velez's actions of formally setting a wedding date and allowing preparations to continue, only to back out at the last minute, were unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which he must be held accountable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    WASSMER VS.

    VELEZ
    Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love decided to get married on
    September 4, 1954. On the day of the supposed marriage, Velez left a note for his bride-to-be that day to
    postpone their wedding because his mother opposes it. Therefore, Velez did not appear and was not heard from
    again.

    The defendant filed an MR, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law. The reason given is that “there is no
    provision of the Civil Code authorizing” an action for breach of promise to marry. According to the previous
    rulings of the SC, it was reiterated that a “mere breach of a promise to marry” is not an actionable wrong. The
    defendant pointed out that Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the new Civil Code the provisions
    that would have it so.

    ISSUE
    WON the breach of promise to marry in this particular case is an actionable wrong

    RULING
    Yes. The Court ruled that this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. This is unjustifiably contrary
    to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 of the
    NCC.
    In this case, when the wedding was set, invitations were already printed out, and were distributed to relatives,
    friends, and acquaintances.

    Party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased. Dresses for the maid of honor and
    the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and
    gifts received. And then, 2 days before the wedding, the defendant just simply left a note postponing the
    wedding because of the opposition of his mother.

    Moreover, 1 day before the wedding, the defendant gave a message that nothing has changed, and rest assured
    that he would be returning soon. But he never returned and was never heard from again.

    Under art. 21 of the 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.”

    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 unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be
    held answerable

    You might also like