Case Summary (G.R. No. 31284)
Petitioner and Respondent Roles
Felipe and Geronimo sued Matias and Socorro for damages arising from the defendants’ alleged breach of their promise to effect the marriage of Socorro to Geronimo. Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the alleged contract was oral and thus unenforceable under the parol-evidence/statute of frauds rule invoked in the Rules of Court.
Key Dates
Decision date: November 26, 1952.
Docket reference provided in the prompt: G.R. No. L-5028.
Applicable Law
Primary rule applied by the Court: Rule 123, Section 21(c) of the Rules of Court (parol evidence inadmissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry). Per the decision date (1952), the 1935 Philippine Constitution was the constitutional framework in effect at the time of the Court’s ruling; however, the Court’s disposition rested on the Rules of Court governing admissibility of oral agreements involving consideration of marriage.
Facts
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants promised the marriage of Socorro to Geronimo on the condition that plaintiffs would (a) improve defendants’ house in Basud and (b) pay for the wedding feast and the bride’s needs. Plaintiffs claimed they complied, expending P700 and making the improvements, and that defendants later refused to carry out the promised marriage. Defendants asserted the agreement was oral and therefore unenforceable under the applicable evidence rule.
Procedural History
The justice of the peace court dismissed the complaint on the defendants’ motion. On appeal, plaintiffs repeated their complaint in the Court of First Instance; defendants again moved to dismiss on the ground that the contested agreement was oral and therefore could not be proved. The lower court issued an order of dismissal, from which the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs may prove and enforce an oral agreement made in consideration of marriage.
- Whether evidence of a mutual promise to marry between the two prospective spouses is admissible to support an action for damages for breach of that promise.
- Whether Felipe (the father) may maintain an action to enforce an agreement made between him and the defendants in consideration of the marriage of his son.
Court’s Analysis
The Court explained that under the Rules of Court the parol-evidence rule (Rule 123, Sec. 21(c)) bars proof of agreements made upon the consideration of marriage except for a mutual promise to marry. The Court distinguished two separate agreements implicated by the alleged transaction: (1) an agreement between Felipe Cabague and Matias Auxilio (and/or the parents) in consideration of the marriage of Socorro and Geronimo, and (2) the mutual promise to marry between Geronimo and Socorro themselves. The Court observed procedural changes in the Rules permitting a defendant to move for dismissal on the ground that a contract is not in writing, even if the complaint does not expressly show that fact, and that the defendant may prove the absence of a written contract on motion. Applying those rules, the Court found no dispute that the transaction was not in writing. The Court held that evidence of a mutual promise between the two lovers is admissible and actionable by the aggrieved fiancé (Geronimo) for damages resulting from the other promising party’s breach. Conversely, agreements made by third parties (here, Felipe’s agreement with Matias) in consideration of the marriage fall squarely within the parol-evidence
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 31284)
Citation and Court
- Reported at 92 Phil. 294.
- G.R. No. L-5028.
- Decision date: November 26, 1952.
- Opinion penned by Justice Bengzon.
- Concurring Justices: Paras, C. J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ.
Procedural History
- Original suit filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Basud, Camarines Norte.
- Plaintiffs: Felipe Cabague and his son Geronimo (plaintiffs and appellants).
- Defendants: Matias Auxilio and his daughter Socorro (defendants and appellees).
- Justice of the Peace dismissed the complaint after defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the contract was oral and therefore unenforceable under the rule on parol evidence.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of First Instance, where they reproduced their complaint and defendants reiterated the motion to dismiss.
- An order of dismissal was entered from which the appeal to the Supreme Court was perfected in due time and form.
Facts Alleged by Plaintiffs
- Defendants promised that Socorro would marry Geronimo.
- The promise was conditioned upon plaintiffs improving the defendants' house in Basud and spending for the wedding feast and the needs of the bride.
- Plaintiffs relied upon these promises, made the improvements, and expended P700.
- Defendants later refused, without cause, to honor their pledged word to effect the marriage.
Motion to Dismiss and Grounding Legal Principle
- Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the contract was oral.
- The dismissal was based on the Rule of Court (parol evidence rule) that parol evidence is not admissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry.
- Citation of controlling rule: Rule 123 Sec. 21(c).
Preliminary Observations on Procedure and Proof
- Under the former rules of procedure, when the complaint did not state whether the contract sued on was in writing, the statute of frauds could not be a ground for demurrer.
- Under the new Rules of Court, a defendant may present a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract was not in writing, even if such fact is not apparent on the face of the complaint; the fact may be proved by him (cited: Moran, Rules of Court 2d ed., p. 139 Vol. I).
- There is no question in the case that the transaction was not in writing.
Core Legal Issue
- Whethe