G.R. No. L-14733; September 30, 1960
ERLINDA ESTOPA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORETA PIANSAY, JR., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Erlinda Estopa, filed an action for recovery of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The undisputed facts are that Estopa, after a courtship during which the defendant, Loreta Piansay, Jr., consistently promised to marry her, submitted herself to him in September 1957. In December 1957, she learned he was backing out of his promise. She demanded compliance and sought help from his parents, but her efforts were futile. She filed the complaint not to compel marriage but to seek compensation for damages, specifically alleging “social humiliation, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feeling and moral shock.” The trial court awarded her P5,000 in moral damages, P2,000 in exemplary damages, and P1,000 in attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees for the defendant’s breach of promise to marry.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and absolved the defendant from all liability. The Court held that under the New Civil Code, the mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, following its ruling in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals. Consequently, the plaintiff has no right to moral damages. Since she is not entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages, she cannot demand exemplary damages, as Article 2234 of the New Civil Code requires an entitlement to such primary damages before exemplary damages may be considered. With no award of damages, there is also no basis to require the defendant to pay attorney’s fees.