8/9/2019 HERMOSISIMA V. CA.doc

1/4

8/9/2019 HERMOSISIMA V. CA.doc

2/4

 Torts and Damages

AR7. %%. #f the pro!ise has been in a public or privateinstru!ent by an adult, or by a !inor *ith the concurrence of

the person *hose consent is necessary for the celebration of the!arria"e, or if the banns have been published, the one *ho

*ithout 4ust cause refuses to !arry shall be obli"ed to

rei!burse the other for the e+penses *hich he or she !ay have

incurred by reason of the pro!ised !arria"e.

7he action for rei!burse!ent of e+penses to *hich the

fore"oin" article refers !ust be brou"ht *ithin one year,

co!puted fro! the day of the refusal to celebrate the !arria"e.

#nas!uch as these articles *ere never in force in the Philippines, this

Court ruled in De Jesus vs. Syquia 5( Phil., 006, that >the action for breach of pro!ises to !arry has no standin" in the civil la*, apart

fro! the ri"ht to recover !oney or property advanced . . . upon the

faith of such pro!ise>. 7he Code Co!!ission char"ed *ith thedraftin" of the Proposed Civil Code of the Philippines dee! it best,ho*ever, to chan"e the la* thereon. 3e @uote fro! the report of the

Code Co!!ission on said Proposed Civil Code2

Articles %1 and %% the Civil Code of &' refer to the pro!ise

of !arria"e. But these articles are not enforced in the

Philippines. 7he sub4ect is re"ulated in the Proposed CivilCode not only as to the aspect treated of in said articles but also

in other particulars. #t is advisable to furnish le"islative

solutions to so!e @uestions that !i"ht arise relative to betrothal. A!on" the provisions proposed are2 7hat authoriin"the ad4udication of !oral da!a"es, in case of breach of

 pro!ise of !arria"e, and that creatin" liability for causin" a

!arria"e en"a"e!ent to be broken.a!p"#l.n$t 

Accordin"ly, the follo*in" provisions *ere inserted in said ProposedCivil Code, under Chapter #, 7itle ###, Book # thereof2

Art. (0. A !utual pro!ise to !arry !ay be !ade e+pressly or

i!pliedly.

Art. (. An en"a"e!ent to be !arried !ust be a"reed directly by the future spouses.

Art. (. A contract for a future !arria"e cannot, *ithout theconsent of the parent or "uardian, be entered into by a !ale

 bet*een the a"es of si+teen and t*enty years or by a fe!ale

 bet*een the a"es of si+teen and ei"hteen years. 3ithout suchconsent of the parents or "uardian, the en"a"e!ent to !arrycannot be the basis of a civil action for da!a"es in case of

 breach of the pro!ise.

Art. ('. A pro!ise to !arry *hen !ade by a fe!ale under the

a"e of fourteen years is not civilly actionable, even thou"h

approved by the parent or "uardian.

Art. 0/. #n cases referred to in the proceedin" articles, the

cri!inal and civil responsibility of a !ale for seduction shallnot be affected.

Art. 0&. No action for specific perfor!ance of a !utual

 pro!ise to !arry !ay be brou"ht.

Art. 0-. An action for breach of pro!ise to !arry !ay be

 brou"ht by the a""rieved party even thou"h a !inor *ithoutthe assistance of his parent or "uardian. )hould the !inor

refuse to brin" suit, the parent or "uardian !ay institute the

action.

Art. 01. 8a!a"es for breach of pro!ise to !arry shall includenot only !aterial and pecuniary losses but also co!pensation

for !ental and !oral sufferin".

Art. 0%. Any person, other than a rival, the parents, "uardians

and "randparents, of the affianced parties, *ho cause a!arria"e en"a"e!ent to be broken shall be liable for da!a"es,

 both !aterial and !oral, to the en"a"ed person *ho is re4ected.

2 thil lozada

8/9/2019 HERMOSISIMA V. CA.doc

3/4

 Torts and Damages

Art. 0(. #n case of breach of pro!ise to !arry, the party breakin" the en"a"e!ent shall be obli"ed to return *hat he or

she has received fro! the other as "ift on account of the pro!ise of the !arria"e.

7hese article *ere, ho*ever, eli!inated in Con"ress. 7he reason

therefor are set forth in the report of the correspondin" )enateCo!!ittee, fro! *hich *e @uote2

7he eli!ination of this Chapter is proposed. 7hat breach of pro!ise to

!arry is not actionable has been definitely decide in the case of De Jesus vs. Syquia, ( Phil., 00. 7he history of breach of pro!ise suit in

the nited )tates and in En"land has sho*n that no other action lends

itself !ore readily to abuse by desi"nin" *o!en and unscrupulous!en. #t is this e+perience *hich has led to the abolition of the ri"hts of

action in the socalled Bal! suit in !any of the A!erican )tates.

)ee statutes of2

Florida &'%( D pp. &1%- D &1%%

Maryland &'%( D pp. &(' D &0- Nevada &'%1 D p. (

Maine &'%& D pp. &%/ D &%&

 Ne* a!pshire &'%& D p. --1California &'1' D p. &-%(

Massachusetts &'1 D p. 1-0

#ndiana &'10 D p. &//'Michi"an &'1( D p. -/&

 Ne* ork &'1(Pennsylvania p. %(/

7he Co!!ission perhaps thou"h that it has follo*ed the !ore

 pro"ression trend in le"islation *hen it provided for breach of

 pro!ise to !arry suits. But it is clear that the creation of suchcauses of action at a ti!e *hen so !any )tates, in conse@uence

of years of e+perience are doin" a*ay *ith the!, !ay *ell

 prove to be a step in the *ron" direction. 5Con"ressionalRecord, 9ol. #9, No. ', 7hursday, May &', &'%', p. -1(-.6

7he vie*s thus e+pressed *ere accepted by both houses of Con"ress.#n the li"ht of the clear and !anifest intent of our la* !akin" body not

to sanction actions for breach of pro!ise to !arry, the a*ard of !oral

da!a"es !ade by the lo*er courts is, accordin"ly, untenable. 7heCourt of Appeals said a*ard2

Moreover, it appearin" that because of defendantappellant;s

seduction po*er, plaintiffappellee, over*hel!ed by her lovefor hi! finally yielded to his se+ual desires in spite of her a"e

and selfcontrol, she bein" a *o!an after all, *e hold that said

defendantappellant is liable for seduction and, therefore, !oralda!a"es !ay be recovered fro! hi! under the provision of

Article --&', para"raph 1, of the ne* Civil Code.

Apart fro! the fact that the "eneral tenor of said Article --&',

 particularly the para"raphs precedin" and those follo*in" the one cited by the Court of Appeals, and the lan"ua"e used in said para"raph

stron"ly indicates that the >seduction> therein conte!plated is thecrime punished as such in Article as such in Article 11 and 11 of the

Revised Penal Code, *hich ad!ittedly does not e+ist in the present

case, *e find ourselves unable to say that petitioner is morally "uiltyof seduction, not only because he is appro+i!ately ten 5&/6 years

youn"er than the co!plainant D *ho around thirtysi+ 5106 years of

a"e, and as hi"hly enli"htened as a for!er hi"h school teacher and alife insurance a"ent are supposed to be D *hen she beca!e inti!ate*ith petitioner, then a !ere apprentice pilot, but, also, because, the

court of first instance found that, co!plainant >surrendered herself> to

 petitioner because, >over*hel!ed by her love> for hi!, s"e %!anted tobind% %by "aving a fruit of t"eir engagement even before t"ey "ad t"e

benefit of clergy.>

7he court of first instance sentenced petitioner to pay the follo*in"2

5&6 a !onthly pension of P1/.// for the support of the child2 5-6

P%,(//, representin" the inco!e that co!plainant had alle"edly failed3 thil lozada

8/9/2019 HERMOSISIMA V. CA.doc

4/4

 Torts and Damages

to earn durin" her pre"nancy and shortly after the birth of the child, asactual and co!pensation da!a"es: 516 P(,///, as !oral da!a"es: and

5%6 P(//.//, as attorney;s fees. 7he Court of Appeals added to thesecond ite! the su! of P&,&&%.-( D consistin" of P&%%.-/, for

hospitaliation and !edical attendance, in connection *ith the

 parturiation, and the balance representin" e+penses incurred to support

the child D and increased the !oral da!a"es to P,///.//.

3ith the eli!ination of this a*ard for da!a"es, the decision of the

Court of Appeals is hereby affir!ed, therefore, in all other respects,

*ithout special pronounce!ent as to cost in this instance. #t is soordered.

4 thil lozada