Case Summary (G.R. No. 97336)
Key Dates
Material events took place in 1986–1987 (meeting on August 3, 1986; alleged proposal and other events in 1987). Trial court judgment dated 16 October 1989. Court of Appeals decision dated 18 February 1991. Petition for review on certiorari filed 26 March 1991. Decision of the Supreme Court denying the petition was rendered on 19 February 1993.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary substantive provision applied: Article 21 of the Civil Code (formerly Article 23 in the Code Commission draft) — liability for willfully causing loss or injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Related provision: Article 2176 (quasi-delict) discussed for contrast. Procedural framework: Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari (limitations on reexamination of factual findings). Applicable constitution for analysis: 1987 Constitution (decision date 1993, i.e., post-1990).
Facts as Pleaded by Private Respondent
Private respondent alleged that petitioner courted and proposed marriage, that she accepted on the condition they marry, and that they agreed to marry after the semester (October 1987). She alleged petitioner visited her parents to secure approval, that he forced her to live with him in his apartment beginning 20 August 1987, that she was a virgin before living with him, that petitioner maltreated and threatened her, and later repudiated the marriage agreement, revealing he was already married to someone in Bacolod. She sought damages of not less than P45,000, reimbursement of P600 actual expenses, attorney’s fees and costs.
Petitioner's Denials and Counterclaim
Petitioner denied proposing marriage or seeking parental consent, denied forcing her to live with him, and denied maltreatment, alleging instead that he told her to stop coming because she had stolen his money and passport. He admitted only personal circumstances. In a counterclaim he sought P5,000 for miscellaneous expenses and P25,000 as moral damages for being allegedly dragged into court and suffering anxiety and injury to reputation.
Pre-trial Stipulations and Evidence
The pre-trial order contained stipulated facts: parties’ residences, petitioner’s status as a second-year medical student at Lyceum-Northwestern, private respondent’s employment since July 1986 and high school education, and that they met by introduction on 3 August 1986. At trial the RTC received the private respondent’s testimony, photographic exhibits showing petitioner with her and family, testimony about petitioner’s trips to her hometown and preparations made by her parents for the wedding, and allegations of a live-in relationship resulting in pregnancy and attempted abortion (as recited in the appellate summary).
Trial Court Findings and Judgment
Applying Article 21, the RTC credited the private respondent’s testimony and concluded: (a) the parties were lovers; (b) private respondent was of good moral character and a virgin prior to the relationship; (c) petitioner, by promise to marry through machination, deceit and false pretenses, induced her to surrender her virtue and live with him; (d) petitioner’s promise led to wedding preparations by the family; (e) petitioner failed to fulfill the promise; and (f) petitioner’s acts offended morals, good customs and traditions. The RTC awarded P20,000 moral damages, P3,000 attorney’s fees, P2,000 litigation expenses, and costs; all other claims denied.
Court of Appeals’ Analysis and Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto. It emphasized (1) the youth and inexperience of private respondent (21) compared to petitioner (29), (2) the absence of indicia that she was of loose morals, (3) photographic and testimonial evidence of petitioner’s overtures and visits to her hometown and family, and (4) petitioner’s admission of a prior live-in relationship in Bacolod. The CA concluded petitioner’s protestations of love and promise to marry were fraudulent and deceptive, induced the surrender of her virtue, and persuaded her parents to assent to living-in arrangements. The CA held these acts contrary to morals, good customs and public policy and thus actionable under Article 21, justifying the award of damages.
Issue on Review and Standard of Review
The sole legal issue in the petition to the Supreme Court was whether Article 21 of the Civil Code applied to permit recovery for the breach of a promise to marry under the facts. The Court reiterated the Rule 45 principle that factual findings of trial and appellate courts are generally conclusive and will not be disturbed absent one of established exceptions (e.g., findings grounded on speculation, manifestly mistaken inference, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, findings beyond issues, conclusions without citation of specific evidence, undisputed facts, or findings premised on supposed absence of evidence contradicted by the record). Petitioner did not successfully invoke any exception; thus the courts’ factual findings were entitled to respect.
Legal Framework: Article 21 and Its Purpose
The Court explained that while breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable and Congress had consciously eliminated a statutory remedy for breach of promise, Article 21 was drafted by the Code Commission to address moral wrongs not otherwise covered by statute. The legislative history and Code Commission report illustrated the intention that Article 21 cover cases where a person willfully causes loss or injury contrary to morals, good customs or public policy — including cases of moral seduction where deceit induces sexual intercourse leading to injury to honor and reputation. The Court contrasted Article 2176 (quasi-delict), which addresses negligence, with Article 21, which captures willful moral wrongs and fills a remedial gap between penal law and negligence-based civil liability.
Application of Article 21 to Promises to Marry and Seduction Doctrine
The Court held Article 21 may apply where a promise to marry is the proximate cause of sexual surrender and the promise was in reality a sham — a deceptive device to entice the woman. Liability under Article 21 is not for the mere promise but for the fraud and deceit and the willful injury to honor and reputation committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. The Court relied on prior decisions and authorities discussing seduction: recovery is warranted only where inducement, deceit, or abuse of confidence—i.e., seduction—caused the woman to yield; mere mutual lust or intercourse voluntarily entered into does not sustain Article 21 recovery. The Court cited Hermosisima (denial where voluntary love and binding by pregnancy were at issue) and Tanjanco (no recovery where facts did not support seduction), emphasizing that seduction requires inducement and deceit producing voluntary surrender in reliance on promise.
Consideration of Petitioner's Defenses and Cultural Argument
Petitioner argued lack of intent to injure, absence of promise, unfamiliarity with Filipino customs as an Iranian Muslim, entitlement to multiple wives under Muslim law, existence of a prior common-law wife now legally married, and that private respondent consented (pari delicto). The Court rejected these defenses: unfamiliarity with local customs does not excuse fraudulent or deceitful conduct contrary to local morals and public policy; claims about Muslim practices did not negate deceit or inability to contract in the manner
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 97336)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 97336; Third Division; 292 Phil. 113; Decision promulgated February 19, 1993; authored by Justice Davide, Jr.
- Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 seeking review and setting aside the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 24256, which affirmed in toto the Regional Trial Court (Branch 38, Lingayen) Decision dated 16 October 1989 in Civil Case No. 16503 (Judge Antonio M. Belen).
- Petition for review filed by petitioner on March 26, 1991; Court of Appeals decision promulgated February 18, 1991; pre-trial conducted January 25, 1988; trial court decision rendered October 16, 1989.
- Petition denied by the Supreme Court; costs imposed on the petitioner.
Parties
- Petitioner: Gashem Shookat Baksh, an Iranian citizen, exchange student, studying medicine at Lyceum Northwestern Colleges, resident of Lozano Apartments, Guilig, Dagupan City.
- Private respondent / complainant: Marilou T. Gonzales, Filipino, age stated as twenty-two (22) in complaint (trial record indicates plaintiff was 21 when she first met defendant).
- Respondent Court of Appeals is also named as party in the caption.
Nature of the Case and Core Legal Question
- Civil action for damages based on an alleged breach of promise to marry and associated moral injury resulting from moral seduction and deceit.
- Central legal issue presented to the Supreme Court: whether damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Material Facts as Alleged by Private Respondent (Complaint)
- Parties met after introduction by the manager of Mabuhay Luncheonette; private respondent was an employee at the luncheonette and a high school graduate.
- Petitioner courted private respondent and proposed marriage before August 20, 1987; she accepted on the condition they would marry and they agreed to marry after the semester (October).
- Petitioner visited private respondent’s parents in Banaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan to secure their approval.
- Around August 20, 1987, petitioner forced private respondent to live with him at Lozano Apartments; she was a virgin prior to living with him.
- A week before filing the complaint petitioner’s attitude changed; he maltreated and threatened to kill her, resulting in injuries.
- At a barangay confrontation a day before filing complaint, petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and ordered her not to live with him; petitioner was alleged to already be married to someone in Bacolod City.
- Private respondent prayed for damages (not less than P45,000.00), reimbursement of actual expenses P600.00, attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief.
Petitioner’s Answer and Counterclaim (Primary Responses)
- Admitted only personal status facts; denied for lack of knowledge or because true facts are his Special and Affirmative Defenses.
- Denied having proposed marriage or seeking parents’ consent; denied forcing her to live with him; denied maltreatment, asserting he told her to stop coming because she allegedly stole his money and passport.
- Denied there was a barangay confrontation.
- Counterclaimed for P5,000.00 miscellaneous expenses and P25,000.00 moral damages, alleging he was dragged into court unnecessarily and suffered mental anxiety and reputational harm.
Pre-Trial Stipulations (Pre-Trial Order dated January 25, 1988)
- Plaintiff is single and resident of Banaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan; defendant is single, Iranian citizen and resident of Lozano Apartment, Guilig, Dagupan City since September 1, 1987.
- Defendant studying at Lyceum-Northwestern, Dagupan City, College of Medicine, second year medicine proper.
- Plaintiff an employee at Mabuhay Luncheonette since July 1986 and a high school graduate.
- Parties met when manager Johnny Rabino introduced defendant to plaintiff on August 3, 1986.
Trial Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions (Decision of October 16, 1989)
- Trial court found that:
- Petitioner and private respondent were lovers.
- Private respondent was not a woman of loose morals or questionable virtue.
- Petitioner, through machinations, deceit, and false pretenses, promised to marry private respondent.
- Because of persuasive promise, private respondent allowed herself to be deflowered by petitioner.
- Private respondent and her parents, following Filipino customs and traditions, prepared for a wedding (looked for pigs and chickens, invited relatives and friends, contracted sponsors).
- Petitioner did not fulfill his promise to marry her.
- Petitioner’s acts, as a foreigner, offended Filipino morality, good customs, culture, and traditions.
- Trial court credited private respondent’s testimony, observing she would not risk public scrutiny of her honor and reputation if her claim were false.
- Dispositive relief ordered by trial court:
- Moral damages awarded P20,000.00.
- Attorney’s fees P3,000.00; litigation expenses P2,000.00; costs.
- All other claims denied.
Evidence Summarized by the Courts
- Private respondent’s testimony: virgin at the time, had never had a boyfriend; defendant courted her, proposed marriage several times; accepted proposal on August 20, 1987; defendant went with her to Banaga, met parents, told parents he intended to marry during semestral break in October 1987; photographs (Exhs. A–E) of defendant with plaintiff and plaintiff’s family taken that day.
- Living together in defendant’s apartment after return to Dagupan City; allegations of tying hands and feet, administration of medicine to induce prolonged sleep, pregnancy and alleged abortion medicine given by defendant.
- Plaintiff left defendant upon learning he said he was already married to a girl in Bacolod City; plaintiffs father testified about wedding preparations.
- Petitioner’s admissions at trial included trips to plaintiff’s hometown (multiple occasions) and his prior cohabitation with a woman in Bacolod City (admitted common-law wife there).
Court of Appeals’ Analysis and Rationale (Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 24256)
- Affirmed trial court in toto on February 18, 1991.
- Found private respondent was not of loose morals, was a virgin prior to intercourse, and was a barrio lass not accustomed to modern urban life; would not have surrendered virtue absent persuasive promise