BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appeallant

No. L-20089. December 26, 1964

FACTS:

Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer planned to get married. However, Velez went away
and Beatrizdid not hear from him again. Beatriz sued Francisco and asked the latter to
pay her moral damages. Velez contended that there is no provision of the law authorizing
an action for breach of promise to marry. However, the court did not find this defense
meritorious because even though it is true that there is no law for breach of promise to
marry, Wassmer still suffered frustration and public humiliation.

ISSUE:

Did the court err in ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff moral damages?

RULING:

The case at bar is not a mere breach of promise to marry because it is not considered an
actionable wrong. The mere fact the couple have already filed a marriage license and
already spent for invitations, wedding apparels, gives the plaintiff reason to demand for
payment of damages. The court affirmed the previous judgment and ordered
the defendant to pay the plaintiff moral damages for the humiliation she suffered;
actual damages for the expenses incurred and exemplary damages because
the defendant acted fraudulently in making the plaintiff believe that he will come
back and the wedding will push through.