Case Summary (G.R. No. 97336)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
• 27 October 1987 – Complaint for damages filed in RTC Pangasinan, Branch 38 (Civil Case No. 16503).
• 25 January 1988 – Pre-trial conducted; parties stipulated basic personal facts.
• 16 October 1989 – RTC rendered judgment in favor of private respondent.
• 18 February 1991 – Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 24256).
• 19 February 1993 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution (post-1990 cases) and the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Article 21, which provides that any person who willfully causes injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy must compensate the injured party.
Factual Background
Respondent alleged that petitioner courted her in early August 1987, promised to marry her after the semester, and obtained her parents’ consent. She claimed virginity prior to their cohabitation in petitioner’s apartment, subsequent maltreatment, threats, injuries, and eventual repudiation of the marriage promise when she became pregnant. She further alleged that petitioner was secretly married in Bacolod.
Petitioner’s Denial and Counterclaim
Petitioner denied any marriage proposal, accused respondent of theft and deception, and asserted that no live-in relationship or barangay confrontation occurred. He counterclaimed for P5,000 in expenses and P25,000 as moral damages for alleged malicious court drag.
Trial Court Findings
Based on respondent’s credible testimony and photographs, the RTC found that petitioner made a deceptive promise to marry, induced respondent’s surrender of her virginity, and that her family prepared for a wedding. The court held these acts contrary to Filipino customs and morality, awarding P20,000 moral damages, P3,000 attorneys’ fees, P2,000 litigation expenses, and costs.
Court of Appeals Analysis
The appellate court affirmed the RTC’s findings, emphasizing respondent’s innocence, petitioner’s inconsistent denials, and his history of cohabitation with another woman in Bacolod. It held that petitioner’s deceit offended public policy and upheld the Article 21 award.
Supreme Court Review of Facts
Under Rule 45, only questions of law are reviewable; factual findings on witness credibility are conclusive absent a showing of misapprehension, grave abuse, or similar exception. Petitioner failed to identify any such exception; hence the lower courts’ factual findings stand.
Applicability of Article 21
While breach of promise to marry is not per se actionable, Article 21 fills the gap for “moral wrongs” not covered by other law. When a promise to marry is used as a fraudulent device to obtain sexual relations, the deceit and consequent injury to honor and reputation justify damages under Article 21.
Principles of Moral Seduction
Recovery requires proof of deceitful inducement—moral seduction—not mere
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 97336)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh to review the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 24256
- Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the 16 October 1989 Decision of Branch 38, RTC Pangasinan, in Civil Case No. 16503
- Issue raised on appeal: whether damages are recoverable for breach of promise to marry under Article 21, Civil Code
Factual Background
- Private respondent Marilou T. Gonzales (22 years old, single, Filipino) and petitioner (Iranian exchange medical student, resident of Dagupan City) met on 3 August 1986
- Courtship and multiple proposals of marriage by petitioner allegedly began before 20 August 1987
- Agreement to marry after semester break (October 1987) and petitioner secured respondent’s parents’ approval in Banaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan
- Respondent moved into petitioner’s apartment in Dagupan City; was a virgin prior to cohabitation
- Alleged maltreatment, threats to kill, physical injuries, forced live-in situation, and ultimate repudiation of marriage promise upon discovery of petitioner’s existing marriage claim
Pre-Trial Stipulations
- Parties agreed on four facts:
• Respondent’s residence and single status; petitioner’s residence, Iranian citizenship, student status in Dagupan City since 1 September 1987
• Petitioner enrolled in second-year medicine proper at Lyceum-Northwestern Colleges
• Respondent employed at Mabuhay Luncheonette since July 1986 and a high school graduate
• Introduction by luncheonette manager on 3 August 1986 as the context of their meeting
Trial Court Proceedings (RTC Pangasinan, Civil Case No. 16503)
- Complaint for damages filed by respondent without counsel:
• Alleged breach of promise to marry, maltreatment, threats, injuries, deceit and abandonment
• Claims for P45,000 moral damages, P600 actual expenses, attorney’s fees and costs - Petitioner’s Answer and Counterclaim:
• Denial of love, proposa