GR L 2929; (December, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2929
FAUSTA BATARRA vs. FRANCISCO MARCOS
December 7, 1906
—
FACTS:
1. Plaintiff-Appellee: Fausta Batarra filed a complaint against Defendant-Appellant: Francisco Marcos for breach of promise of marriage, alleging that Marcos induced her into a sexual relationship under the pretense of marriage.
2. The lower court ruled in favor of Batarra, awarding her 500 pesos in damages.
3. Marcos appealed, arguing that the judgment was erroneous because:
– The relationship was consensual and not criminal (since Batarra was not under 23, negating seduction under Art. 443 of the Penal Code).
– No legal basis existed for damages under Art. 449 (indemnification for rape, seduction, or abduction).
—
ISSUE:
Whether Batarra is entitled to damages for breach of promise of marriage and seduction under the Civil Code.
—
RULING:
1. No Criminal Seduction: The relationship did not constitute seduction (Art. 443, Penal Code) because Batarra was of legal age (over 23). Thus, Art. 449 (indemnification for crimes against chastity) did not apply.
2. No Civil Liability for Breach of Promise:
– The promise of marriage was immoral consideration (sexual relations as “cause” for the promise).
– Under Art. 1305, Civil Code, no recovery is allowed when both parties willingly participated in an immoral/criminal act.
– Art. 1306 further bars recovery when mutual fault exists.
3. No Damages Under Art. 1902 (Tort):
– Batarra voluntarily consented to the relationship. The maxim “Scienti et volenti nulla fit injuria” (no injury is done to one who knows and consents) applies.
4. Judgment Reversed: The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision, absolving Marcos of liability. No costs awarded to either party.
Concurring Justices: Torres, Mapa, Carson.
Partial Concurrence: Tracey (agreed with the result).
Absent: Johnson.
—
Key Doctrine:
– Breach of promise to marry with immoral consideration (sexual relations) does not create civil liability if both parties willingly participated.
– Consensual relationships between adults preclude damages under civil or criminal law unless elements of coercion or fraud (beyond mere promise) are proven.
Case Significance:
This early Philippine ruling established that mutually consensual sexual relationships, even if predicated on a broken marriage promise, do not warrant legal redress due to the parties’ shared fault.