G.R. No. L-7798; January 14, 1916
ANGELA C. GARCIA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOAQUIN DEL ROSARIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On March 10, 1911, Angela C. Garcia filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Mindoro against Joaquin Del Rosario for damages arising from a breach of promise to marry. The complaint alleged three causes of action: (1) damages for the breach of the mutual promise to marry on June 30, 1910; (2) support for a child born from their illicit relations following the promise; and (3) damages for the loss of her teaching position and salary, which she claimed she was compelled to resign due to her pregnancy and the defendant’s failure to marry her. The defendant demurred, arguing the complaint stated no cause of action, but the demurrer was overruled. At the trial, the plaintiff waived the first and second causes of action, proceeding solely on the third. The trial court found that the defendant had indeed promised to marry the plaintiff, that their amorous relations resulted in her pregnancy, and that the defendant had urged her to resign from her teaching post, which paid P30 monthly, based on his promise. The court awarded the plaintiff P540 as indemnity for damages equivalent to one and a half years of her lost salary. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred (1) in overruling the demurrer to the complaint, and (2) in finding that the defendant’s breach of promise to marry caused the plaintiff to lose her employment, thereby justifying an award of damages.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. On the demurrer: The Court held that the facts alleged in the third cause of action were sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint adequately stated that the plaintiff, relying on the defendant’s promise of marriage and due to her consequent pregnancy, was induced to resign from her teaching position, resulting in pecuniary loss.
2. On the award of damages: The Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings, which were based on a preponderance of evidence, including the defendant’s own letters corroborating the promise of marriage. The Court agreed that the defendant’s fault in failing to fulfill his promise directly caused the plaintiff to resign from her employment. Under Article 1902 of the Civil Code (now Article 2176 of the Civil Code), which establishes liability for fault or negligence causing damage, the defendant was liable to indemnify the plaintiff for the loss of her salary. The award of P540, representing one and a half years of her former salary, was deemed a reasonable and equitable indemnity for the time reasonably needed for her to secure another teaching position.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.