G.R. No. L-20089 - Wassmer vs. Velez

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20089)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Marriage license applied for August 23, 1954; wedding set for September 4, 1954. Default judgment in trial court rendered April 29, 1955 (P2,000 actual; P25,000.09 moral and exemplary; P2,500 attorney’s fees; costs). Defendant filed a petition for relief from judgment June 21, 1955; court denied petition July 20, 1956. Appeal to the Supreme Court followed; Supreme Court decision issued December 26, 1964, with a subsequent resolution denying reconsideration on February 26, 1965.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Applicable constitution: the 1935 Philippine Constitution (in force at the time of decision). Primary substantive law applied: the Civil Code, notably Article 21 (liability for willful acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy), Article 2219(10) (allowing moral damages in Article 21 cases), and Article 2232 (standards for exemplary damages). Procedural rules referenced: Rule 38, Sec. 3 (affidavit of merit required for petition for relief from judgment) and the rule authorizing the clerk of court to receive evidence as commissioner (Rule 34, now Rule 33). Controlling precedents relied upon by the Court are cited in the decision.

Facts Established by the Record

The parties applied for a marriage license and publicly set the wedding date. Significant wedding preparations were made and publicized: printed invitations distributed; trousseau, party dresses and apparel purchased; dresses prepared for maid of honor and flower girl; bridal bed and accessories bought; bridal showers held and gifts received. On September 2, 1954 defendant left a note postponing the wedding because “My mother oppose it,” and on September 3 he sent a telegram assuring return; he nevertheless failed to appear and ceased contact.

Trial Court Proceedings and Default Judgment

Defendant filed no answer and was declared in default. Evidence was received before the clerk of court acting as commissioner pursuant to the applicable rules. Plaintiff proved the sequence of reliance and expenditure arising from the announced marriage; trial court awarded actual, moral/exemplary, attorney’s fees and costs. Defendant later moved for relief from judgment on grounds of excusable negligence, alleging he believed an amicable settlement was being negotiated.

Procedural Issues: Default, Taking of Evidence, and Petition for Relief

The Court upheld that use of the clerk of court as commissioner to receive evidence is a recognized procedure (citing the rule and precedent). Because defendant was in default, he had no standing to object to that procedure. For petitioners seeking relief from judgment on grounds such as excusable negligence, Section 3, Rule 38 requires an affidavit of merit alleging facts constituting a valid defense. The Court reiterated the long-standing requirement that the affidavit state facts, not mere conclusions.

Affidavit of Merits: Deficiency and Legal Consequence

The affidavit attached to defendant’s petition stated only that he “has a good and valid defense…his failure to marry the plaintiff as scheduled having been due to fortuitous event and/or circumstances beyond his control.” The Supreme Court held this to be a conclusory statement, lacking facts describing the asserted fortuitous events or circumstances. Citing prior decisions that require specificity (e.g., Vaswani v. P. Tarachand Bros., Cortes v. Co Bun Kim, Vda. de Yulo v. Chua Chuco), the Court found the affidavit insufficient to justify reopening the case; it did not enable the court to evaluate the probable merits of the defense and would force the court to speculate as to facts. Consequently, relief from judgment was properly denied.

Substantive Liability: Breach of Promise to Marry vs. Article 21 Wrong

The decision distinguished mere breach of a promise to marry (historically non-actionable, per Hermosisima and Estopa) from the facts of this case. Although breach of promise alone is not actionable, Article 21 of the Civil Code imposes liability when someone willfully causes loss or injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. The Court found that the defendant’s conduct—publicizing a wedding, prompting extensive preparations and expenditures, then abandoning the nuptials at the last moment and disappearing—was not a mere broken promise but an act palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs and public policy, making him liable under Article 21.

Damages: Actual, Moral, and Exemplary

The Court accepted the award of actual damages (P2,000) and attorney’s fees (P2,500), but reviewed the aggregate moral and exemplary damages. Under Article 2219(10), moral damages are recoverable in Article 21 cases. Exemplary damages require that the defendant acted wantonly, fraudulent, reckless, op

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-20089)

Factual Background

The relationship between Francisco X. Velez (defendant) and Beatriz P. Wassmer (plaintiff) began with mutual promise of love and an intention to marry; the wedding was set for September 4, 1954.
On August 23, 1954 plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to contract marriage, which was issued (Exhs. A, A-1).
Preparations for the wedding were extensive and public: invitations were printed and distributed (Tsn., 5; Exh. C); the bride’s trousseau, party dresses and other apparel were purchased (Tsn., 7-8); dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared; a matrimonial bed with accessories was bought; bridal showers were given and gifts received (Tsn., 6; Exh. E).
Two days before the scheduled wedding, on September 2, 1954, defendant left a note for plaintiff stating: "Dear Bet- Will have to postpone wedding. My mother oppose it. Am leaving on the Convair today. 'Please do not ask too many people about the reason why. That would only create a scandal. Paquing'"
On September 3, 1954 defendant sent plaintiff a telegram reading: "NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED RETURNING VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA LOVE PAKING".
Defendant did not appear for the wedding, did not return, and thereafter was not heard from again; the record states defendant was then 28 years old.

Procedural History — Trial Court

Plaintiff sued defendant for damages arising from his failure to marry as scheduled.
Defendant filed no answer and was declared in default.
Plaintiff adduced evidence before the clerk of court acting as commissioner.
On April 29, 1955 judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff ordering defendant to pay:
- P2,000.00 as actual damages;
- P25,000.09 as moral and exemplary damages;
- P2,500.00 as attorney’s fees;
- plus costs.
On June 21, 1955 defendant filed a "petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration." (The opinion later refers to a petition of June 21, 1956 when discussing the petition’s allegations.)
Plaintiff moved to strike out the petition for relief.
The court ordered parties and their attorneys to appear on August 23, 1955 "to explore at this stage of the proceedings the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement," warning that failure to appear would deem petition and opposition submitted for resolution.
Defendant failed to appear on August 23, 1955; on August 24 counsel filed a motion to defer resolution for two weeks to confer with defendant in Cagayan de Oro City regarding settlement; the court granted two weeks counted from August 25, 1955.
Plaintiff later manifested on June 15, 1956 that the two-week period had expired on September 8, 1955 and that defendant and his counsel had failed to appear.
The court again called the parties to appear on July 13, 1956; defendant’s counsel informed the court that chances of settling amicably were nil.
On July 20, 1956 the court issued an order denying defendant’s petition for relief.
Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Defendant’s Claim in Petition for Relief and Affidavit of Merits

In his petition (dated in the opinion as June 21, 1955 and later as June 21, 1956) defendant alleged excusable negligence as ground to set aside the default judgment, specifically stating he filed no answer because he believed an amicable settlement was being negotiated.
The petition was accompanied by an affidavit of merits which stated: "That he has a good and valid defense against plaintiff's cause of action, his failure to marry the plaintiff as scheduled having been due to fortuitous event and/or circumstances beyond his control."
Defendant later contended that the affidavit of merits was unnecessary or merely surplusage because the judgment sought to be set aside was allegedly null and void, having been based on evidence adduced before the clerk of court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the affidavit of merits attached to defendant’s petition for relief satisfied the statutory requirement (Sec. 3, Rule 38, Rules of Court) that a petition for relief from judgment on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence must be supported by an affidavit of merit stating facts constituting a valid defense.
Whether the judgment rendered on evidence received by the clerk of court as commissioner was invalid or void, and whether defendant’s consent to such procedure was required.
Whether mere breach of a promise to marry is actionable and, if not, whether defendant’s conduct in this case falls within Article 21 of the Civil Code (liability for acts contrary to morals, good customs or public policy).
Whether the awards for moral and exemplary damages (P25,000.09) were excessive and whether exemplary damages were proper under Article 2232 of the Civil Code, which requires that the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.

Applicable Rules, Statutes and Precedents (as cited in the opinion)

Rule 38, Sec. 3, Rules of Court — requires