Broken promise

Dear Atty. Nico,

I was sued by my former fiancé for damages. He is an American who proposed to marry me next year. He even arranged and paid for our supposed wedding, amounting to P1,000,000. However, during the course of our relationship, I found out that he has been married to a Japanese with whom he has been separated for years. Because of this information, I broke up with him, thus, the civil action. Do I need to return the amount he paid?

Tin

□□□□□

Dear Tin,

There is no need for you to pay back the amount he paid.

Under our laws, a breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, as pronounced in the case of Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals where the Supreme Court observed that the New Civil Code omitted the provisions in the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 that allowed actions for breach of promise to marry.

Nevertheless, in Wassmer vs. Velez, the same Court allowed the recovery of damages as a result of a canceled marriage. The award in such case was not based on the breach of promise to marry, but on Article 21 of the New Civil Code. It was ruled that while a breach of promise to marry was not actionable, walking out of a wedding two days prior, after all had been prepared, was quite different. The defendant’s act was deemed “palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs,” for which the award of damages was proper.

However, in the case of Guevarra vs. Banach, although the Court recognizes the principles above-mentioned, human relations provisions in the New Civil Code presuppose that the party seeking damages must have acted in good faith. This is the reason why the groom-to-be’s conduct in Wassmer was considered unjust and contrary to good customs. Had the bride-to-be been in bad faith, the human relations provisions would not have been applied.

Applying the same in your circumstance, you do not need to return the amount he paid as his actions were tainted with fraud and deceit; he did not tell you the truth about his previous marriage. Furthermore, the said amount would be considered as a gift to which you may not be compelled to return.

Atty. Nico A. Antonio