BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appeallant
No. L-20089. December 26, 1964
FACTS:
Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer planned to get married. However, Velez went away and Beatriz did not hear from him again. Beatriz sued Francisco and asked the latter to pay her moral damages. Velez contended that there is no provision of the law authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry. However, the court did not find this defense meritorious because even though it is true that there is no law for breach of promise to marry, Wassmer still suffered frustration and public humiliation.
ISSUE:
Did the court err in ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff moral damages?
RULING:
The case at bar is not a mere breach of promise to marry because it is not considered an actionable wrong. The mere fact the couple have already filed a marriage license and already spent for invitations, wedding apparels, gives the plaintiff reason to demand for payment of damages. The court affirmed the previous judgment and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff moral damages for the humiliation she suffered; actual damages for the expenses incurred and exemplary damages because the defendant acted fraudulently in making the plaintiff believe that he will come back and the wedding will push through.
