G.R. No.

97336 February 19, 1993

GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents.

FACTS
Private respondent, without the assistance of the counsel filed with the trial court a complaint for damages
against the petitioner. She alleges in the complaint: she is twenty-two years old, single, Filipino and a pretty
lady of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her community. The petitioner, Gashem
Shookat Baksh is an Iranian Citizen residing at Lozano Apartment, Guilig, Dagupan City and is an
exchange student taking medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan city. Private
respondent is a waitress of a restaurant where the petitioner usually eats and they introduced to each other
by the owner of the restaurant. Petitioner courted the private respondent and proposed to marry her; she
accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. They agreed to get married at the end of
school semester. The petitioner went to the town of the private respondents to visit her parents and asked
their approval to the marriage. The petitioner then forced the private respondent to live with him in his
apartment. She was still a virgin before she began living with him. Suddenly, the petitioners attitude began
to change as he maltreated and threaten to kill her. As a result, she sustained injuries. At the confrontation
with the representative of the barangay captain of Guilig, petitioner renounced their marriage agreement
and asked her not to live with him anymore and he is already married to someone living in Bacolod City.
On the counterclaim of the petitioner, he denies all the statements of the private respondent and he told her
to stop coming to his apartment because he discovered that she deceived him by stealing his money and
passport. The decisions of RTC and court of appeals are in favor of the private respondent that is why the
petitioner appeal for certiorari.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an actionable wrong.
2. Whether or not Art. 21 of the civil code of the Philippines apply this case.

RULLING
1. NO. Breach of promise is not actionable wrong but there is fraud and deceit behind it and the willful
injury to the honor and reputation of the private respondents which result to disgrace not only to the
physical and emotional aspect of the individual but also to the mental aspect. It is essential, that
such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy which also in violation of Article 21 of the civil code.

2. Yes. It applies to this case since it gives injury to the honor and reputation of the private
respondent. Article 21 states 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.
In the light of the above laudable purpose of Article 21, We are of the opinion, and so hold, that
where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a
woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the
giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying
her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to
accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages
pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit
behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential,
however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy.
The instant petition for certiorari is hereby DENIED.