G.R. No. L-14628; September 30, 1960
FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Hermosisima and complainant Soledad Cagigas, a former high school teacher, were in a relationship regarded as an engagement. In 1953, they began a sexual relationship. In February 1954, upon being informed by Cagigas that she was pregnant, Hermosisima promised to marry her. Their child, Chris Hermosisima, was born on June 17, 1954. However, on July 24, 1954, Hermosisima married another woman, Romanita Perez. Cagigas filed an action to have the child declared Hermosisima’s natural child and to claim damages for breach of promise to marry. Hermosisima admitted paternity and willingness to support the child but denied having promised marriage. The Court of First Instance of Cebu declared the child as Hermosisima’s natural daughter, ordered child support, and awarded Cagigas actual/compensatory damages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but increased the amounts of actual/compensatory and moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether moral damages are recoverable under Philippine law for breach of a promise to marry.

RULING

No. Moral damages are not recoverable for breach of promise to marry. The Supreme Court traced the legislative history, noting that while the old Spanish Civil Code allowed damages for breach of promise, its relevant articles were never in force in the Philippines. The Court had previously ruled in De Jesus vs. Syquia that no civil action exists for breach of promise apart from recovering money or property advanced. Although the Code Commission proposed provisions in the draft of the new Civil Code that would allow moral damages for such breach, the Congress deliberately eliminated the entire chapter on betrothal. Congress cited the abusive history of such suits in other jurisdictions and the trend of abolishing them. This clear legislative intent not to sanction actions for breach of promise to marry renders the award of moral damages untenable. The Court also rejected the Court of Appeals’ alternative basis for moral damages under Article 2219(3) for seduction, finding that the facts did not constitute the crime of seduction under the Revised Penal Code, given Cagigas’s age (approximately 36, ten years older than Hermosisima), her background as a teacher, and the lower court’s finding that she “surrendered herself” due to love. The award of moral damages was deleted. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in all other respects, including the declaration of paternity, child support, and the award of actual/compensatory damages (as modified) and attorney’s fees.