G.R. No. L-17248; January 29, 1962
Beatriz Galang, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Maximo Quinit and Rodrigo Quinit, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Beatriz Galang filed an action for damages against Rodrigo Quinit and his father Maximo Quinit, alleging a breach of Rodrigo’s promise to marry her. The Court of First Instance of Baguio ruled in her favor, awarding actual and moral damages, plus attorney’s fees, against both defendants jointly and severally. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified this decision. It absolved Maximo Quinit entirely, finding no credible evidence of his participation in any alleged marriage arrangement or scheme. As to Rodrigo Quinit, the appellate court upheld the award for actual damages but eliminated the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees.
The factual findings of the Court of Appeals established that Beatriz Galang and Rodrigo Quinit were engaged but faced parental opposition. They cohabited from April 27 to May 9, 1955, at Colorado Falls. The evidence on the circumstances leading to the cohabitation and the alleged breach was conflicting. Galang claimed there was a formal marriage arrangement consented to by Maximo, which Rodrigo later abandoned. Rodrigo’s version was that he left his parental home due to the conflict and was persuaded by Galang to go to Colorado Falls, but he refused to marry her immediately, leading to intimidation by her relatives.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, particularly on the credibility of evidence exonerating Maximo Quinit, are reviewable by the Supreme Court; and (2) whether moral damages are recoverable for a breach of promise to marry under the applicable laws.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of fact and credibility assessments made by the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and beyond the scope of review in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Since the appellate court found Galang’s evidence against Maximo Quinit unworthy of belief, that finding is binding on the Supreme Court. Therefore, the absolution of Maximo Quinit was proper.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that moral damages are not recoverable for a breach of promise to marry. This legal principle was already settled in the precedent case of Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals (L-14628, September 30, 1960). The Court reiterated that a mere breach of promise to marry, without more, is not an actionable wrong that warrants an award for moral damages under the Civil Code provisions governing quasi-delicts or damages. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly deleted the award of moral damages (and by logical extension, the attorney’s fees predicated on the award of damages) made by the trial court against Rodrigo Quinit. The award for actual damages, not being contested, stood.