Runaway Valentine

It was a wedding banquet, and guests were seated and served dishes from the specially selected menu. Guests are unsure though if the wedding cake will be served, as the bride will not be there to cut it. The groom left even a bit earlier. Just before he was to say “I do” in the altar, he was distracted by someone who called his name twice from the church crowd. He left the altar, went into the arms of the lady in skirt and sunglasses and walked away from the church. Not even the celebrating priest who summoned him to return was able to stop him. It’s a true story that can put movie scriptwriting to shame.

They say “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. But that woman can launch a civilized attack via a lawsuit – without guarantee of success. Before we get to the wedding, there are the engagement and gifts in between, so why don’t we go to those first? Can the groom demand the return of a diamond engagement ring if the wedding does not push through? It came as a surprise to me that when I asked a few women if they will return the diamond ring if the guy calls the wedding off, the answer was “No!” Invariably though, if they were the ones who called the wedding off, they said they would return the ring. Legally, the emotional inclinations are irrelevant.

I would consider the engagement ring as generically part of an agreement (the guy gave and the girl accepted, so they agreed) in consideration of marriage. For this contract to be valid, it must be in writing and signed by the gift-giver (the person who would be sued). Without this formality, the ex-fiancée cannot keep the ring because the contract is unenforceable (Article 1403, 2(c) Civil Code). Maybe one way of defending the ring is to say that it wasn’t given in consideration of marriage, but simply a “sweetheart” gift. But the law on the matter is that donations of personal property in excess of P5,000 must be in writing. Otherwise, it’s void. So ladies can retain an engagement rings worth P5,000 and below even without a document. (Of course, at that amount, the desire to retain may be less.)

A promise to marry is worse. I mean, even if you put that in writing, that remains unenforceable. At gunpoint you may compel marriage, but to compel through contract is simply not sanctioned by our laws. Love before marriage cannot be contracted. Legislators did not make breach of promise to marry actionable because lawsuits would be the venue of reprieve for the brokenhearted, or simply put, the venue to exact revenge. Indeed, why put the judge as the unwilling third party in a legal love triangle of sorts?

Not all miseries of the heart though are without redress. The generic Article 21 of the Civil Code allows one to claim compensation from anyone who causes injury in a manner that is “contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy”. Also Article 2176 of the Code says that “whoever causes damage to anyone by fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done”.

Actual damages, when proven, are invariably awarded in lawsuits. That means the groom is required to reimburse the bride he turned away from, such as costs for invitations printed and distributed, wedding gown, bridesmaids’ dresses, church and reception, to the extent that the “bride” or her parents spent for them. The issue is whether moral damages can be awarded. The Wassmer case appears to be a case of interference of a mother-in-law cast as a villainess (except that it’s not a movie). Two days before the wedding, the groom-to-be flew to Mindanao and left a note that said; “Will have to postpone wedding, my mother opposes it...” And the next day sent a telegram (yes, texting was not available then) that read, “Nothing changed rest assured returning soon…” but he never did.

The shame that the lady and her family suffered after all the announcements and preparations had been completed warranted an award, not only of actual damages, but moral and exemplary damages as well.

Moral damages were however not awarded to a lady involved in an affair that would be labeled today as “cougarish”. She was 37, and he was 27, but it was her first experience. The court found the male guilty of morally seducing her whom he called “a woman, after all”. She bore his child and the court awarded her actual damages for support and income lost during her pregnancy. Perhaps not much shame was caused; perhaps her maturity was also a factor, so that moral damages were not given.

Going back to pre-wedding gifts – technically, the best gifts for the bride-to-be are not pricey diamond rings but cars and real estate, if those can be put under her name. This is because before “titling” happens, the proper instrument must be executed to satisfy the required formalities. But there are no formalities, so there’s no security for an expensive ring – although lots of drama in a wedding proposal can accompany that.

But what of the misfortune of a woman who, before wedding preparations and costs, was abandoned and suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish and great emotional distress? The best antidote is not redress or revenge – but to find another Valentino.

Happy Valentine’s Day to all my readers!

* * *

Alexander B. Cabrera is the chairman and senior partner of Isla Lipana & Co./PwC Philippines. He also chairs the Educated Marginalized Entrepreneurs Resource Generation (EMERGE) program of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). Email your comments and questions to [email protected]. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.