BEATRIZ GALANG, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent
NO.L-17248.January 29, 1962
FACTS:
Plaintiff Beatriz Galang and Rodrigo Quinit were engaged, but Rodrigo’s parents were strongly opposed to their marriage. They lived as husband and wife in the house of one Adolfo Dagawan until Rodrigo left and never returned. The evidence on other pertinent facts is however conflicting. Plaintiff tried to prove that she and Rodrigo were engaged despite the opposition of the latter’s mother and that the father of Rodrigo agreed to give dowry and defray the expenses of the marriage. The father even took them to the house of Dagawan for them to stay as husband and wife. However when Rodrigo was not able to secure a marriage license for lack of a residence certificate, he went back to his hometown to get such certificate but never returned.
On the other hand, the defendants sough to establish that he and plaintiff were engaged but his parents were opposed to the marriage. Rodrigo was agreeable to marry the plaintiff after his graduation but the latter was impatient and wanted the marriage to take place sooner. Because of continued relationships with the plaintiff, Rodrigo’s parents told him to leave the parental home. He later told this to plaintiff. The plaintiff convinced him to go to Dagawan’s house where she followed and stayed thereafter. Because of his continued refusal to marry the plaintiff, the latter’s relatives, accompanied by policemen and constabulary soldiers intimidated him. He was allowed to go home and was then placed under the custody of a town mayor by his parents. He refused to acknowledge the marriage application, which was provided by Dagawan for him to sign, when he did not appear before a notary public.
Plaintiff filed an action against Rodrigo and his father Maximo Quinit to recover damages for breach of promise on the part of Rodrigo to marry her. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, which on appeal, was reversed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not plaintiff may recover damages for breach of promise to marry.
RULING:
It is urged by the plaintiff that said Court had erred in not awarding moral damages to her. She insists that moral damages for breach of promise to marry are collectible under our laws, but this question has already been settled adversely to plaintiff’s pretense in Hemosisima vs. Court of Appeals. Moral damages for breach of promise to marry are not collectible.
