Sponsored
A mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, as long as it is not of such extent as would palpably and unjustifiably contradict good customs. In any case, the party seeking to recover damages must have acted in good faith.
Beyond this public policy, however, is the recognition that the right to marry is a fundamental human right. Marriage is a social institution that creates a permanent bond between individuals, and the law grants them rights and obligations unique to married couples. The choice of whether to marry-and necessarily, whom to marry-is a personal decision that a person makes for themself. This individual choice must be made, as much as possible, completely free from any external pressures. After all, marriage can and will change a person's life.
Ads.
An individual has the autonomy to choose whom to marry, or whether to marry at all. They must be free to make that choice without any fear of legal retribution or liability. The decision on whether to marry is one that should be freely chosen, without the pressures of a possible civil suit should a person realize that their intended partner is not right for them. We recognize instances when the breach of one's commitment in an intimate relationship is a consequence of their realization that marriage may not be the wisest path they could take given their circumstances.
Ads.
For this reason, litigation to the sorrows caused by a broken heart and a broken promise must be discouraged.
Related
Suggested answer in Political Law & International Law Read here
TAKE NOTE
Nevertheless, in Wassmer v. Velez, this Court allowed the recovery of damages as a result of a canceled marriage. In Wassmer, preparations for the wedding had already been made-a marriage license had been secured; wedding invitations printed and distributed; dresses for the bride, maid of honor, and flower girl purchased; bridal showers given and gifts received; the matrimonial bed bought, complete with accessories-only to have the wedding canceled just two days before its intended date.
Wassmer did not depart from the doctrine that a mere breach of promise to many is not an actionable wrong. The award in Wassmer was not based on the breach of promise to marry, but on Article 21 of the New Civil Code.47 Wassmer ruled that, while a breach of promise to marry was not actionable, walking out of a wedding two days prior, after all had been prepared, was quite different. The defendant's act was deemed "palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs," for which the award of damages was proper.48 Indeed, "the extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunit[y] is not limitless[,]" as these acts are still subject to the human relations provisions of the New Civil Code.49
Now, respondent proposes the same theory in his attempt to recover the P500,000.00 he had given petitioner. He argues that petitioner's conduct was actionable, not because of her breach of promise to many, but because of the law on unjust enrichment in the New Civil Code.
What respondent fails to consider, however, is that the human relations provisions in the New Civil Code presuppose that the party seeking damages must have acted in good faith. In Wassmer, this Court awarded damages because the party who sought damages-the bride-to-be-did not perpetrate lies, fraud, or deception, which would have barred recovery. This is the reason why the groom-to-be's conduct in Wassmer was considered unjust and contrary to good customs. Had the bride-to-be been in bad faith, the human relations provisions would not have applied.
This case is different. Here, petitioner called off the engagement after she had discovered respondent's lies and deception. As the Court of Appeals found, respondent's actions were tainted with fraud and deceit; he did not have the purest intentions in marrying petitioner. He lied about his marital status, and even hid his true name from petitioner. These acts suffice to justify the wedding's cancellation. Finding out that one's betrothed is still married to another person, and that they are not who they say they are, are reasons enough to conclude bad faith.
Since respondent himself did not act in good faith, he cannot claim damages under the New Civil Code
Ads.
Related
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
Comments