GR L 5028; (November, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5028; November 26, 1952
FELIPE CABAGUE and GERONIMO CABAGUE, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MATIAS AUXILIO and SOCORRO AUXILIO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Felipe Cabague and his son Geronimo Cabague sued Matias Auxilio and his daughter Socorro Auxilio in the justice of the peace court of Basud, Camarines Norte, to recover damages resulting from the defendants’ refusal to proceed with the agreed marriage between Socorro and Geronimo. The complaint alleged that the defendants promised the marriage on the condition that the plaintiffs would improve the defendants’ house and spend for the wedding feast and the bride’s needs; that relying on this promise, the plaintiffs made the improvements and spent P700; and that the defendants, without cause, refused to honor their promise. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the contract was oral and unenforceable under the parol evidence rule. The court dismissed the case. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiffs reproduced their complaint, and the defendants reiterated their motion to dismiss. The Court of First Instance also dismissed the case, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the oral agreement between the parties is admissible as evidence and enforceable in court, considering the rule that parol evidence is not admissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the transaction involved two kinds of agreements. The first is an agreement between Felipe Cabague and the defendants (Matias and Socorro Auxilio) in consideration of the marriage, which is unenforceable under the parol evidence rule (Rule 123, Section 21(c) of the Rules of Court). The second is a mutual promise to marry between Geronimo Cabague and Socorro Auxilio, which is admissible as evidence. Therefore, Geronimo may continue his action against Socorro for damages resulting from her failure to fulfill their mutual matrimonial promise. However, Felipe Cabague’s action against the defendants to enforce the agreement in consideration of the marriage cannot prosper. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.