Title
Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-18630
Decision Date
Dec 17, 1966
Araceli Santos sued Apolonio Tanjanco for damages after he breached a promise to marry her, resulting in pregnancy. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling no deceit or seduction under Article 21 of the Civil Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18630)

Key Dates

  • December 1957: Initial acquaintance and commencement of courtship.
  • July 1958–July 1959: Period of repeated intimate relations premised on promises of marriage.
  • December 17, 1966: Decision of the Supreme Court authorizing review and final judgment.

Procedural History

  1. Civil Case No. Q-4797, Court of First Instance of Rizal: Complaint for support and damages dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
  2. Appeal to the Court of Appeals, Case No. 27210-R: Affirmed dismissal of support claim, but recognized a cause of action for damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code.
  3. Appeal by Tanjanco to the Supreme Court: Challenge to the Court of Appeals’ recognition of damages.

Facts

  • From December 1957, Tanjanco courted Santos and professed promises of marriage.
  • Relying on these assurances, Santos consented to repeated acts of carnal knowledge from July 1958 through July 1959.
  • Santos became pregnant; she resigned from her secretary position to avoid social embarrassment.
  • Upon learning of her condition, she demanded marriage; Tanjanco ceased all visits and broke off the engagement.
  • Santos sued for recognition of the unborn child, monthly support (P430.00), moral and exemplary damages (P100,000.00), and attorney’s fees (P10,000.00).

Applicable Law

  • 1935 Philippine Constitution (governing constitution at time of decision).
  • Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 21: “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
  • Jurisprudential definitions of seduction (U.S. vs. Buenaventura, 27 Phil. 121; U.S. vs. Arlante, 9 Phil. 595).

Issue

Whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute a tortious “seduction” under Article 21 of the Civil Code, thereby supporting an action for moral damages.

Court’s Analysis

  • The Court of Appeals relied on a legislative memorandum illustrating Article 21’s coverage of moral wrongs such as seduction of a minor, where deceit and abuse of confidence induce sexual relations.
  • Supreme Court clarified that seduction involves artful persuasion and deception leading to sexual intercourse, not mere consensual relations between adults.
  • The allegations demonstrate mutual consent and voluntary intimacy over an extended period; Santos repeatedly yielded to Tanjanco’s advances, indicating no element of deceit or

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.