Case Digest (G.R. No. 97336)
Facts:
Gashem Shookat Baksh v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Marilou T. Gonzales, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993, the Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh (an Iranian student) was sued by private respondent Marilou T. Gonzales in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 38, Lingayen) by a complaint filed 27 October 1987 alleging that petitioner had courted her, promised marriage, induced her to live with him and to give up her virginity by virtue of that promise, and later repudiated the promise and maltreated her. Gonzales sought P45,000 (at least) in damages, P600 reimbursement for expenses, attorney’s fees and costs; the complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 16503.
In his Answer with Counterclaim petitioner denied most substantive allegations, admitted only basic personal circumstances, denied proposing marriage or forcing cohabitation, asserted instead that respondent had deceived him and stolen from him, and counterclaimed for P5,000 miscellaneous expenses and P25,000 moral damages. The parties conducted pre-trial; the Pre-Trial Order recorded four stipulated facts about residency, occupation and how they met.
After trial the RTC (Judge Antonio M. Belen) credited respondent’s testimony, found that petitioner had fraudulently promised marriage, that respondent surrendered her virginity because of that promise, and that the respondent’s parents had made wedding preparations in reliance on the promise. Applying Article 21 of the Civil Code, the trial court on 16 October 1989 awarded respondent P20,000 as moral damages, P3,000 as attorney’s fees, P2,000 as litigation expenses, denied other claims and costs.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in CA-G.R. CV No. 24256, promulgated its Decision on 18 February 1991 affirming the RTC in toto. The Court of Appeals agreed that while a mere breach of promise to marry is not actionable, Article 21 can reach cases of “fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love” that amount to moral seduction; applying that doctrine it sustained the moral-damages award.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contending principally that Article 21 was inapplicable because he committed no moral wrong, that a mere breach of promise is non-act...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ factual findings—particularly as to credibility and moral seduction—binding and not subject to reversal in this Rule 45 petition?
- May damages be recovered under Article 21 of the Civil Code for a breach of promise to marry when the promise was a deceptive device that proximately caused a woman to surrender her vi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)