Contrary to good customs

A person breaking a promise is not breaking any law. So he is not, as a general rule, liable for damages. But this case of Adam is an exception.

Adam is a 28-year-old handsome and very eligible bachelor who seems to be still immature and always wavering. He is the only son of Patty, a widow who has been closely taking care of him even at his age, and bringing him along to drive for her wherever she goes. From the looks of it, Adam seems to be a mama’s boy.

In one of Patty’s business affairs bringing Adam along to drive for her, Adam happened to meet Nina, the daughter of Vic, a widower who had some dealings with Patty. That meeting marked the start of a romance between Adam and Nina culminating in a seemingly tentative marriage proposal by Adam which Nina demurely but readily accepted.

And so a wedding date was set by the lovers three months thereafter to give them enough time for preparations. The wedding invitations were then printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances. Nina’s trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased. Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were also prepared. Even a matrimonial bed with accessories was bought. Bridal showers were held and gifts received. And 12 days before the wedding, Adam and Nina went to the local civil registrar’s office to apply for a marriage license which was subsequently issued. So everything was prepared and everybody was ready for the much awaited wedding.

But then, with but two days before the wedding Adam simply left a note for Nina stating: Will have to postpone wedding — My mother opposes it….” He then went back to his home city in the south. But then again on the day before the wedding, he wired Nina: “Nothing has changed rest assured returning soon.” Since then however, he never returned and was never heard from again.

So Nina sued Adam for damages. Adam however filed no answer and was declared in default. Thus Nina adduced her evidence before the Clerk of Court as Commissioner and obtained a judgment ordering Adam to pay Nina, actual damages of P20,000; P250,000 moral and exemplary damages and P25,000 attorney’s fees plus cost of suit.

Upon learning of this judgment, Adam through his lawyer filed a petition for relief from the judgment of the Court alleging that Adam’s failure to marry Nina as scheduled was due to fortuitous event or circumstance beyond his control. Instead of acting on the petition, the Court ordered the parties to appear for the possibility of amicable settlement. But on the dates set for such meeting Adam was a no show again. So the court finally issued an order denying Adam’s petition.

Nevertheless Adam appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. Was Adam correct?

No. Mere breach of promise to marry is not really an actionable wrong. Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the new Civil Code the provisions that would have it so. But surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. To formally set a wedding and go through all the above described preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different.

It must not be overlooked that the extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless. For Article 21 of the Civil Code provides that “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. This case of Adam is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which he should he should be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 afore-quoted.

 Moral and exemplary damages may be awarded per express provision of Article 2219 (10) and Article 2232 of the Civil Code. Under the circumstances of this case however, it should be reduced to P150,000. Adam’s case is similar to the ruling in the case of Wassmer vs. Velez, G.R. L-20089, December 26, 1964.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected].