GR 18630; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18630 December 17, 1966
Apolonio Tanjanco, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Araceli Santos, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Apolonio Tanjanco and respondent Araceli Santos, both adults, became acquainted in December 1957. Tanjanco courted Santos, professed his love, and promised marriage. In consideration of this promise, Santos consented to carnal knowledge in July 1958. Their intimate relationship continued regularly until July 1959, resulting in Santos’s pregnancy. Upon confirming her pregnancy, Santos pleaded with Tanjanco to fulfill his promise of marriage, but he stopped seeing her and broke the engagement. Santos filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal seeking a decree compelling Tanjanco to recognize the unborn child, pay monthly support, and award moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action for damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. Tanjanco appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that actions for breach of promise to marry are not permissible.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint states a cause of action for damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code based on the alleged breach of promise to marry and the subsequent sexual relationship.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the complaint did not state a cause of action under Article 21. The essential element for an action under Article 21 in the context of seduction is deceit, enticement, or abuse of confidence. The allegations and the facts—specifically, that Santos, an adult, maintained intimate sexual relations with Tanjanco for about a year—demonstrated voluntariness and mutual passion, not seduction. The Court reasoned that had Santos been deceived, she would not have repeatedly yielded to his embraces over an extended period without exacting fulfillment of the marriage promise. Therefore, no cause of action was made under Article 21. The dismissal was without prejudice to any future actions the child may have against Tanjanco.