G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993
GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Marilou T. Gonzales, a single Filipino woman, filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Gashem Shookat Baksh, an Iranian citizen and medical student, for breach of promise to marry. She alleged that petitioner courted and proposed to marry her, which she accepted on the condition they would marry after the school semester in October 1987. Petitioner visited her parents to secure their approval. Sometime on August 20, 1987, petitioner forced her to live with him in his apartment, and she lost her virginity. A week before filing the complaint, petitioner maltreated her, threatened to kill her, and later repudiated the marriage agreement, stating he was already married to someone in Bacolod City (though the parties later stipulated he was single). Private respondent and her parents had made preparations for the wedding. Petitioner, in his answer, denied the allegations, claiming he never proposed marriage, did not force her to live with him, and only told her to stop coming because she stole his money and passport. After trial, the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of private respondent, awarding moral damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses based on Article 21 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. Article 21 of the Civil Code provides: “Any person who wilfully 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.” A breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However, it becomes actionable if it is coupled with other factors that make the defendant’s act contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. In this case, the petitioner’s acts—deceitfully promising marriage to secure the private respondent’s consent to sexual relations, subsequently maltreating her, and then callously repudiating the promise—constituted a willful injury to her feelings and a violation of her dignity, which is contrary to morals and good customs. Therefore, damages under Article 21 are recoverable. The award of moral damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses was sustained.