Facts: Franciso Velez and Beatriz Wassmer decided to get married on September 4, 1954. Two days before the wedding, Francisco left a note for his bride-to-be:Will have to postpone wedding-My mother opposes it. Am leaving on the Convair today. The next day, he sent her the ff. telegram: NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED RETURNING VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA LOVE PAKING. Velez filed for damages, and judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay actual, moral and exemplary damages. Defendant now asserts that his failure to marry plaintiff was due to fortuitous event and circumstances beyond his control and the judgment against him is contrary to law, given that there is no provision in the Civil Code authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry.
Issue: WON breach of promise to marry is actionable.Held: No it is not, but this case is not a mere breach of promise to marry. He must be held answerable for the damages in accordance with Art. 21.The SC maintained that though breach of promise to marry is not actionable, but the defendant’s act is still punishable under Article 21 of the Civil Code which states 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.” In this case, plaintiff already arranged everything for the wedding, like the wedding gowns, invitations, matrimonial bed, etc. The SC held that this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry - A wedding has been formally set and all the preparations have been made, only for the groom to walk out 2 days before. This is contrary to good customs, since defendant acted in a reckless and oppressive manner.
