"Women must be treated with respect, decency and dignity."
"Women must be treated with respect, decency and dignity."A promise is a declaration of one’s intention to do or refrain from doing something, while a breach of promise is the failure to do what one promises, where he or she has promised it in order to induce action in another (Barron’s Law Dictionary). If one promises to marry another but fails to do it, he has breached or broken his promise to marry. This is also known in common law as the heart balm action.
The promise to marry can be made orally or in writing. If in writing, there is no specific form nor wording required so long as it leads to an understanding that there is a promise to marry. In the case of Wassmer v. Velez, “two days before the wedding, [Velez] … simply left a note for Wassmer stating: “Will have to postpone wedding — My mother opposes it,” and the next day, the day before the wedding, he wired the plaintiff: "Nothing changed rest assured returning soon." However, he never returned and was never heard from again (G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964).
The question is – can a person be sued for breaking a promise to marry? “Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the necessary preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs, for which the erring promisor must be held answerable to damages in accordance with Article 21 of the New Civil Code” (Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964).
In the case of Wassmer, plaintiff Wassmer and defendant Velez applied for a license to contract a marriage, which was subsequently issued. Their wedding was set on a specific date. Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances. The bride-to- be’s trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased. Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girls were prepared. A matrimonial bed with accessories were bought. Bridal showers were given and gifts received (G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964).
In the modern-day setting, the wedding preparations may vary depending on the social standing of the couple, and may include a wedding planner, photographers and videographers, flowers, an event host, performers during the reception, gifts to sponsors, wedding giveaways, honeymoon destinations; and for wealthy families, the couple’s own house and lot as a gift from the parents. With the use of different social media platforms, the engagement and preparations for the wedding can even be viewed publicly by the couple’s friends and family.
The extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity is not limitless, as Article 21 of said Code provides that: "Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." Per express provision of Article 2219(10) of the new Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of the said Code (Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964).
There is also potential recovery of exemplary damages under Article 2232 of the Civil Code if the aggrieved party is able to prove that "the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner." The determination of entitlement to damages will be based on the particular circumstances of each case. It is not enough that allegations are made in the pleadings; there must be sufficient evidence to support these allegations.
In another case, defendant Apolonio Tanjanco courted the plaintiff, Araceli Santos, both being of adult age; the "defendant expressed and professed his undying love and affection for plaintiff who also in due time reciprocated the tender feelings… [In] consideration of defendant's promise of marriage plaintiff consented and acceded to defendant's pleas for carnal knowledge … as a result of which the latter conceived a child; [and] that due to her pregnant condition, to avoid embarrassment and social humiliation, plaintiff had to resign [from] her job as secretary in IBM Philippines, Inc…” (Tanjanco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966).
For one whole year, Santos, a woman of adult age, maintained intimate sexual relations with Tanjanco with repeated acts of intercourse. According to the Supreme Court, “such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction. Plainly there is here voluntariness and mutual passion; for had she been deceived, surrendered exclusively because of the deceit, artful persuasions and wiles of Tanjanco, she would not have again yielded to his embraces, much less for one year, without exacting early fulfillment of the alleged promises of marriage…” (Tanjanco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966).
Understanding the countless gaps in the statutes which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, the Code Commission [of 1947] had deemed it necessary, in the interest of justice, to incorporate the present provisions of Article 21. An example of the foregoing norm follows: " ‘A’ seduces the nineteen-year old daughter of ‘X’. A promise of marriage either has not been made, or cannot be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Under the present laws, there is no crime, as the girl is above eighteen years of age. Neither can any civil action for breach of promise of marriage be filed… [b]ut under the proposed article, she and her parents would have such a right of action” (Tanjanco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966).
Yet in another case of a failed promise to marry, plaintiff Marilou Gonzales, then only 21 years old, claimed that she was a virgin and never had a boyfriend before defendant Gashem Baksh, 29 years old, an Iranian then studying in the Philippines, started courting her. He later proposed marriage to her several times and she accepted his love as well as his proposal of marriage. He went with her to her hometown of Bañaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan, as he wanted to meet her parents and inform them of their relationship and their intention to get married (Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993).
On that occasion, defendant Baksh told the plaintiff’s parents and brothers and sisters that he intended to marry her during the semestral break. The plaintiff's parents thought he was a good man and trusted him; they agreed to his proposal for him to marry their daughter, and they likewise allowed him to stay in their house and sleep with plaintiff Marilou during the few days that they were in Bugallon. When they returned to Dagupan City, they continued to live together in the defendant's apartment (G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993).
However, the defendant would tie the hands and feet of plaintiff Gonzales while he went to school, and even gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the morning that made her sleep the whole day, waking up the following day. The plaintiff eventually became pregnant, but the defendant gave her medicine to abort the fetus. Still, the plaintiff continued to live with the defendant and kept reminding him of his promise to marry her. However, he told her that he could not do so because he was already married to a girl in Bacolod City (G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993).
“[A] man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress [when] he had no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to obtain her consent to the sexual act” (Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993). This can justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of the promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation (Baksh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993).
For the 1993 Baksh case, the man cannot be held liable for criminal seduction because the victim was above eighteen (18) years of age. However, under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, the victim in a “dating relationship” with a man can sue the latter civilly and/or criminally for acts of violence committed by the latter against the former. Some acts of violence of a man against a woman are: (a) causing imminent physical harm; (b) restricting her freedom of movement by threat of force, intimidation or physical harm; (c) emotional abuse and psychological stress; (d) public ridicule or humiliation; and (e) denial of financial support to a child (Section 5, Republic Act 9262).
Women must be treated with respect, decency and dignity. She should be free from violence and threats to her personal safety and security. While statutes can always be enacted to protect women, we must educate those who come after us on these issues and address them.