G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993 GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES DAVIDE, JR., J. Facts: Private respondent Marilou Gonzales, a barrio lass of good moral character, then 21 years of age, met petitioner, a 29 year old Iranian citizen and an exchange student taking a medical course in Lyceum Colleges in Dagupan City, through one Rabino, the manager of Mabuhay Luncheonette where the former was working as a waitress. Private respondent claimed that she was a virgin at the time and she never had a boyfriend before. Petitioner started courting Gonzales just a few days after they first met. o He later proposed marriage several times which Gonzales accepted on August 20, 1987. On this same day, they went to Baaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan, to meet with Gonzales parents. The intended marriage was to take place during the semestral break in October 1987. o Private respondents parents thought petitioner was good and trusted him, thus they agreed to his proposal of marriage to their daughter, and they likewise allowed him to stay in their house and sleep with private respondent during their stay in Bugallon. o Upon being informed of the nearing wedding, private respondents father already looked for sponsors for the wedding, started preparing for the reception by looking for pigs and chickens, and even already invited many relatives and friends. Upon their return to Dagupan City, the petitioner and private respondent continued to live together in the formers apartment. However, in the early days of October, 1987, petitioner would tie Marilous hands and feet while he went to school, and he even gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the morning that made her sleep the whole day and night until the following day. As a result of this live-in relationship, Marilou became pregnant, but petitioner gave her some medicine to abort the fetus. Still Marilou continued to live with him and kept reminding him of his promise to marry her until he told her that he could not do so because he was already married to a girl in Bacolod City. Marilou then left petitioner, going back to her parents, who thereafter consulted with a about what had transpired Marilou, her lawyer, her godmother, and a barangay tanod sent by the barangay captain went to talk to petitioner to still convince him to marry private respondent, but petitioner insisted that he could not do so because he was already married to a girl in Bacolod City, despite stipulating at the pre-trial, is that he is still single. Marilou then filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner for the latters breach of promise to marry. The CFI, applying Art. 21 of the Civil Code ruled in favor of Marilou and ordered petitioner to pay her P20, 000, among others, as moral damages. o Petitioner appealed but the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Petitioner argues that said Article 21 does not apply because he had not committed any moral wrong or injury or violated any good custom or public policy; he has not

professed love or proposed marriage to the private respondent; and he has never maltreated her. o He avers that private respondent should also be faulted for consenting to an illicit arrangement. o Petitioner posits that even if he had promised to marry Marilou, his breach thereof is not actionable. Issue: Can the breach of promise to marry give rise to an action for damages? Held: CA affirmed the decision. But wait! The Supreme Court also came to the conclusion that the private respondent surrendered her virginity, the cherished possession of every single Filipina, not because of lust but because of moral seduction. The breach of promise to marry is not an actionable cause per se, but the Court found another reason to hold Baksh liable for damages based on quasi-delict. Notwithstanding, the said Code contains a provision, Article 21, which is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books. Additionally the Civil Code also includes Art. 23 that provides: 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 Then we have Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict as: whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. In this case the Court explained that when a man uses his promise of marriage to deceive a woman to consent to his malicious desires, he commits fraud and willfully injures the woman. o Therefore, moral damages can be claimed when such promise to marry was a deceptive ploy to have carnal knowledge with the woman. o Actual damages on the other hand, should be paid for the wedding preparation expenses. As to the petitioners claim of the respondent being in-pari delicto with him, the court says: o It is apparent that she had qualms of conscience about the entire episode for as soon as she found out that the petitioner was not going to marry her after all, she left him. She is not, therefore, in pari delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto means "in equal fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault." At most, it could be conceded that she is merely in delicto.