Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Wassmer v. Velez, GR. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964

Beatriz Wassmer sued Francisco Velez for damages due to breach of promise to marry. They were set to wed but Velez postponed the wedding two days before citing his mother's opposition, and was then never heard from again. The court found Velez liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code for willfully causing injury through actions contrary to morals and good customs. While breach of promise alone is not actionable, Velez's unjustified abandonment so close to the wedding warranted damages. The court affirmed the ruling requiring Velez to pay Wassmer actual, moral, and exemplary damages.

Uploaded by

MonicaCelineCaro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Wassmer v. Velez, GR. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964

Beatriz Wassmer sued Francisco Velez for damages due to breach of promise to marry. They were set to wed but Velez postponed the wedding two days before citing his mother's opposition, and was then never heard from again. The court found Velez liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code for willfully causing injury through actions contrary to morals and good customs. While breach of promise alone is not actionable, Velez's unjustified abandonment so close to the wedding warranted damages. The court affirmed the ruling requiring Velez to pay Wassmer actual, moral, and exemplary damages.

Uploaded by

MonicaCelineCaro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Wassmer v.

Velez
GR. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964
Petitioner: Beatriz Wassmer
Respondent: Francisco Velez

Issue: W/N Velez is liable for paying damages to Wassmer due to breach in
promise to marry?

Facts: Velez and Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided
to get married in 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Velez left a
note saying that the wedding had to be postponed because his mother
opposes it. Velez was never heard from again.

Ratio: Mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong,


however Art. 21 of the NCC provides that 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. Evidence reveals
that the parties applied for a marriage license, commenced preparations for
the wedding, bridal showers happened, and yet Velez simply left with a note
that states that the wedding must be postponed because his mother opposes
it.

Wassmer sued Velez for damages, but he filed no answer and was declared in
default. CFI ordered defendant to pay Wassmer actual, moral, and exemplary
damages. Defendant then filed a petition for relief and Wassmer moved to
strike it out. Velez counsel motioned to defer the resolution on Velez
petition for relief, to sort out the possibility of an amicable settlement. CFI
granted this, but it was parties were not able to meet due to absence of Velez.
CFI gave another chance for amicable settlement, but Velez counsel said this
would no longer be possible. CFI then denied Velez petition for relief. Velez
raised to SC.

Held: YES. CFI ruling is affirmed.

Surely, this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. But the above is
palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs.
Moral damages are recoverable under Art. 21.

You might also like