Photo from Unsplash | Jeremy Wong Weddings
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
A mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, as long as it is not of such extent as would palpably and unjustifiably contradict good customs. In any case, the party seeking to recover damages must have acted in good faith.
In the Philippines, would it be considered as an actionable wrong in case a groom-to-be or bride-to-be decides to no longer push through with the wedding? Is there any law that he or she would violate?
The answer is a mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, as long as it is not of such extent as would palpably and unjustifiably contradict good customs.
In the case of Jhonna Guevarra et al. vs. Jan Banach, Banach, a German citizen, met Guevarra and later on decided to get married. However, what Banach did not tell Guevarra, however, was that he had still been married to his third wife then. When Guevarra found out about Banach’s lies and deception, she broke up with him and no longer wanted to push through the wedding.
There are two issues resulting from this scenario, which are:
- Is Guevarra’s breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong?
- Is Banach entitled to the return of his P500,000.00 that Banach gave petitioner for their supposed conjugal home.
The Supreme Court ruled that a mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. This doctrine was first pronounced in Hermosisima v. Court of Appeals, where this Court observed that the New Civil Code omitted the provisions in the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 that allowed actions for breach of promise to marry. Hermosisima treated the omission to mean that such breach is no longer recognized as an actionable wrong. This doctrine was reiterated in Estopa v. Piansay and Baksh v. Court of Appeals.
Nevertheless, in Wassmer v. Velez, this Court allowed the recovery of damages as a result of a canceled marriage. In the case of Wassmer, preparations for the wedding had already been made-a marriage license had been secured; wedding invitations printed and distributed; dresses for the bride, maid of honor, and flower girl purchased; bridal showers given and gifts received; the matrimonial bed bought, complete with accessories-only to have the wedding canceled just two days before its intended date.
However, while a breach of promise to marry was not actionable, walking out of a wedding two days prior, after all had been prepared was deemed “palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs,” for which the award of damages was proper. The award in Wassmer was not based on the breach of promise to marry, but on the law on unjust enrichment embodied under Article 21 of the New Civil Code:
“Article 21. Any person who wilfully 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.”
Now, Banach proposes the same theory in his attempt to recover the P500,000.00 he had given to Guevarra. He argues that Guevarra’s conduct was actionable, not because of her breach of promise to many, but because of the law on unjust enrichment in the New Civil Code.
What Banach fails to consider, however, is that in order to be entitled to damages pursuant to the law on unjust enrichment in the New Civil Code, the party seeking damages must have acted in good faith.
In Wassmer, this Court awarded damages because the party who sought damages-the bride-to-be-did not perpetrate lies, fraud, or deception, which would have barred recovery.
This case is different. Here, Guevarra called off the engagement after she had discovered Banach’s lies and deception. Since the Banach himself did not act in good faith, he cannot claim damages under the New Civil Code. The unjust enrichment principle under Article 21 only applies if the property is acquired without legal grounds. Here, Banach gave Guevarra P500,000.00 as a gift to help her and her family with their possible eviction from their home. The money being a gift, Guevarra is correct to say that she cannot be compelled to return the P500,000.00 given to her.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE
- When are marriages considered valid despite absence of a valid marriage license?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.