Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Wassmer v. Velez

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Arboleda Magno
    Francisco and Beatriz were engaged to be married but Francisco broke off the engagement two days before the wedding. Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. The trial court found Francisco liable and ordered him to pay damages. Francisco appealed, arguing breach of promise to marry is not actionable. The Supreme Court held that while normally not actionable, setting a wedding date and making extensive preparations then backing out at the last minute is contrary to morals and customs and Francisco could be held liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

    Copyright:

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

    Wassmer v. Velez

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Arboleda Magno
    31 views2 pages
    Francisco and Beatriz were engaged to be married but Francisco broke off the engagement two days before the wedding. Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. The trial court found Francisco liable and ordered him to pay damages. Francisco appealed, arguing breach of promise to marry is not actionable. The Supreme Court held that while normally not actionable, setting a wedding date and making extensive preparations then backing out at the last minute is contrary to morals and customs and Francisco could be held liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

    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 and Beatriz were engaged to be married but Francisco broke off the engagement two days before the wedding. Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. The trial court found Francisco liable and ordered him to pay damages. Francisco appealed, arguing breach of promise to marry is not actionable. The Supreme Court held that while normally not actionable, setting a wedding date and making extensive preparations then backing out at the last minute is contrary to morals and customs and Francisco could be held liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views2 pages

    Wassmer v. Velez

    Uploaded by

    Shiela Arboleda Magno
    Francisco and Beatriz were engaged to be married but Francisco broke off the engagement two days before the wedding. Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. The trial court found Francisco liable and ordered him to pay damages. Francisco appealed, arguing breach of promise to marry is not actionable. The Supreme Court held that while normally not actionable, setting a wedding date and making extensive preparations then backing out at the last minute is contrary to morals and customs and Francisco could be held liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BEATRIZ P.

    WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee,
    vs.
    FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant.
    G.R. No. L-20089      December 26, 1964
    Facts:

                    Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love
    decided to get married on September 4, 1954. All the necessary preparations were undertaken
    for the said event. However, two days before the wedding, Francisco left a note for Beatriz informing
    her that the wedding will not push through because his mother opposed the union. The following day,
    he sent her a telegram stating that he will be returning very soon. Francisco never showed up and has
    not been heard since then.

    Beatriz subsequently sued Francisco for damages.

    The trial court ordered Francisco to pay Beatriz actual, moral and exemplary damages. Francisco filed a
    petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration,
    which was denied, by the trial court. Later, an attempt by the Court for amicable settlement
    was given chance but failed, thereby rendered judgment hence this appeal.

    Francisco appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law, as there is no
    provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry. .

                   

                     

    Issue:

                    Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an actionable wrong in this


    case.

    Held: Yes. Francisco may be held liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code, which provides: "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."

                    Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But


    formally set a wedding and go through all the necessary preparations and publicity and
    only to walk out of it when matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This
    is palpable and unjustifiable to good customs which holds liability in accordance with
    Art. 21 on the New Civil Code.

                    When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under the same, moral and
    exemplary damages may not be awarded when it is proven that the defendant
    clearly  acted in wanton, reckless and oppressive manner.

    The record reveals that plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to contract marriage, which
    was subsequently issued. Their wedding was set. Invitations were printed and distributed to
    relatives, friends and acquaintances. The bride-to-be’s trousseau, 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, with but two days before the wedding, defendant, who
    was then 28 years old, simply left a note for plaintiff stating: “Will have to postpone wedding —
    My mother opposes it…“ He enplaned to his home city in Mindanao, and the next day, the day
    before the wedding, he wired plaintiff: “Nothing changed rest assured returning soon.” But he
    never returned and was never heard from again.

    You might also like