Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14628)
Facts:
Francisco Hermosisima, G.R. No. L-14628, September 30, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Francisco Hermosisima appealed by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals that modified a judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu.In October 1954, Soledad Cagigas (complainant) filed a complaint in the CFI of Cebu for (1) acknowledgment of her child, Chris Hermosisima, as petitioner’s natural child, (2) support for the child, and (3) 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 CFI ordered alimony pendente lite of P50.00 monthly (October 27, 1954), later reduced to P30.00 (February 16, 1955).
The CFI rendered judgment declaring the child the natural daughter of petitioner; confirmed the P30 monthly support; and awarded P4,500.00 as actual and compensatory damages, P5,000.00 as moral damages, and P500.00 as attorney’s fees. Petitioner appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI except that it increased the actual/compensatory damages to P5,614.25 (including medical and child-support expenses) and increased moral damages to P7,000.00. Petitioner brought the present appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
The factual background admitted at trial was that complainant, born July 1917, and petitioner, about ten years younger, were intimate and regarded as engaged although no formal promise preceded their intimacy. They had sexual intercourse in 1953 aboard M/V “Escano.” In February 1954 petitioner allegedly promised to marry upon learning complainant was pregnant; the child was born June 17, 1954. Petitioner subsequently married another woman on July 24, 1954, prompting the complaint.
Lower courts awarded moral damages for breach of promise (as modified by the Court of Appeals). The Supreme Court considered w...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Philippine law, is an action for breach of promise to marry recognized so as to permit recovery of moral damages?
- Alternatively, on the facts of this case, can petitioner be held liable for seduction so as to justify the award of moral damages under Article 2219(3) of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)