Title
Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-14628
Decision Date
Sep 30, 1960
Soledad Cagigas sued Francisco Hermosisima for child support and damages for breach of promise to marry. The Supreme Court ruled moral damages for breach of promise are not recoverable under Philippine law, affirming child support but eliminating moral damages.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14628)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties, complaint, and procedural history
    • On October 4, 1954, Soledad Cagigas (“complainant”) filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against Francisco Hermosisima (“petitioner”) for:
      • Acknowledgment of Chris Hermosisima as petitioner’s natural child;
      • Support of the child;
      • Moral damages for alleged breach of promise to marry.
    • Petitioner admitted paternity and willingness to support the child, but denied any promise to marry.
    • The trial court granted alimony pendente lite of ₱50/month (October 27, 1954), later reduced to ₱30/month (February 16, 1955).
  • Relationship background and events leading to action
    • From 1950, complainant (born July 1917), then a teacher, and petitioner (approx. ten years younger), were socially regarded as engaged despite no formal promise.
    • In 1953, after an evening at the movies, they had sexual intercourse aboard M/V “Escano.” In February 1954, upon learning of her pregnancy, petitioner allegedly promised to marry.
    • Child born June 17, 1954; on July 24, 1954, petitioner married another woman, prompting the present action.
  • Decisions below and appeal
    • The trial court’s decision (1955) declared Chris as petitioner’s natural child, confirmed ₱30/month support, and awarded:
      • ₱4,500 actual and compensatory damages;
      • ₱5,000 moral damages;
      • ₱500 attorney’s fees, plus costs.
    • On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed but increased:
      • Actual damages to ₱5,614.25 (adding ₱144.20 medical/hospital expenses and child support expenses);
      • Moral damages to ₱7,000.

Issues:

  • Whether moral damages are recoverable under Philippine law for breach of promise to marry.
  • Whether petitioner can be held liable for “seduction” under Article 2219(3) of the Civil Code, thereby justifying moral damages.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.