G.R. No. L-14628 - Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14628)

Petitioner

Francisco Hermosisima admitted paternity of Cagigas’s child and willingness to provide support but denied any promise to marry her.

Respondent

The decision under review was rendered by the Court of Appeals, which modified the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.

Key Dates

• June 17, 1954 – Birth of Chris Hermosisima
• July 24, 1954 – Petitioner’s marriage to another woman
• October 4, 1954 – Filing of complaint for acknowledgment of paternity, support, and moral damages
• October 27, 1954 – Trial court orders alimony pendente lite (₱50/month)
• February 16, 1955 – Alimony reduced to ₱30/month
• September 30, 1960 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• Spanish Civil Code (in force prior to the Philippines’ own Civil Code)
• Revised Penal Code (Articles 337–338 on seduction)
• 1935 Philippine Constitution (in effect in 1960)

Background and Factual Context

Since 1950, Cagigas and petitioner were socially viewed as engaged. In 1953 they commenced a consensual sexual relationship. Upon learning of her pregnancy in February 1954, Cagigas asserted that petitioner promised to marry her; he subsequently wed another woman. Alleging breach of promise, she sought acknowledgment of paternity, monthly child support, reimbursement for lost earnings, and moral damages.

Procedural Posture

The Cebu trial court:
– Declared paternity
– Ordered ₱30/month support
– Awarded ₱4,500 actual damages (lost earnings)
– Awarded ₱5,000 moral damages
– Awarded ₱500 attorney’s fees

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed these awards but increased actual damages to ₱5,614.25 and moral damages to ₱7,000. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue

Are moral damages recoverable under Philippine law for breach of promise to marry, and can petitioner be held liable for “seduction” under Article 2219(3) of the Civil Code?

Legal Framework Pre-1960

– Spanish Civil Code Articles 43–44: no action for breach of promise to marry, except reimbursement of documented expenses.
– De Jesus v. Syquia (58 Phil. 866): Philippine courts have no cause of action for breach of promise to marry beyond refund of advances.
– Proposed Civil Code (1950): included provisions for moral damages on breach of promise (Articles 56–65), but Congress deleted them.
– Revised Penal Code Articles 337–338: define seduction as a criminal offense requiring force, deceit, or exploitation of minority.

Reasoning on Breach of Promise

The Supreme Court emphasized that Congress chose not to enact any statutory cause of action for breach of promise to marry, reflecting a clear legislative determination to reject such suits. It cited the Senate Committee report noting abuses of “breach-of-promise” actions in other jurisdictions and reaffirmed De Jesus v. Syquia.

Liability for Seduction

The Court of Appeals invoked Article 2219(3) of the Civil Code to justify moral damages for seduction. The Supreme Court rejected this theory, ob