Case Summary (G.R. No. 236381)
Deficiencies in Affidavit of Merit
Under Rule 38, § 3, Velez’s petition to set aside the default judgment required an affidavit stating facts constituting a defense. His affidavit alleged only that “fortuitous events and/or circumstances beyond his control” caused the failure to marry, a mere conclusion. Precedents (Vaswani v. Tarachand Bros., 110 Phil. 521; Cortes v. Co Bun Kim, 90 Phil. 167) hold that affidavits must present factual details, not opinions, to permit assessment of a defense’s viability.
Validity of Evidence Procedure
Velez contended the judgment was void because evidence was taken before the clerk of court. However, Rule 34 (now Rule 33) expressly authorizes the clerk as commissioner to receive testimony. As Velez was in default, his consent to this procedure was unnecessary (Velez v. Ramas, 40 Phil. 787; Alano v. CFI, 106 Phil. 445).
Actionability of Breach of Promise to Marry
While mere breach of marriage promise is non-actionable (Hermosisima v. CA, 109 Phil. 629; Estopa v. Piansay, 109 Phil. 640), Article 21 of the Civil Code covers willful acts contrary to morals or public policy. The abrupt abandonment of a fully prepared wedding, with attendant social embarrassment and expense, falls within this provision, giving rise to liability for damages.
Award of Damages and Supreme Court Modification
The trial court’s award included P2,000 actual damages; P25,000 moral and exemplary damages; and P2,500 attorney’s fees. Velez argued that exemplary damages were unwarranted. The Supreme Court agreed that his conduct was wanton and oppressive, justifying exemplary damages under Art. 2232, but reduced the moral and exemplary award
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 236381)
Parties and Nature of the Case
- Beatriz P. Wassmer, plaintiff and appellee, sued for damages resulting from the defendant’s failure to appear for their scheduled wedding.
- Francisco X. Velez, defendant and appellant, appealed the denial of his petition for relief from judgment by default.
Facts
- The parties mutually promised to marry and applied for a marriage license on August 23, 1954.
- Their wedding was set for September 4, 1954; invitations were printed and distributed to friends and relatives.
- The bride-to-be procured a trousseau, party dresses, and other apparel; bridal showers were held and gifts received; a matrimonial bed and accessories were purchased.
- On September 2, 1954, the defendant left a handwritten note postponing the wedding due to his mother’s opposition and announced immediate travel.
- On September 3, 1954, he sent a telegram reassuring the plaintiff of his return and apologizing, but he never reappeared or communicated thereafter.
Trial Court Proceedings
- Plaintiff filed suit for damages; defendant filed no answer and was declared in default.
- Evidence was taken before the clerk of court as commissioner, pursuant to Rule 34 (now Rule 33) of the Rules of Court.
- On April 29, 1955, judgment awarded P2,000.00 as actual damages; P25,000.09 as moral and exemplary damages; P2,500.00 as attorney’s fees; and costs.
Post-Judgment Motions and Attempts at Settlement
- On June 21, 1955, defendant filed a “petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings” and a motion for new trial, accompanied by an affidavit of merits.
- Plaintiff moved to strike out the petition; the court instead summoned the parties on August 23, 1955 to explore amicable settlement.
- Defendant failed to appear; his counsel secured a two-week deferment to negotiate.
- After further notices (July 6, 1956), counsel reported no chance of settlement; the court denied the petition for relief on July 20, 1956.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the default judgment was void or should be set aside for excusable negligence or procedural infirmity.