Not morally liable

This is a case between two lovers whose romantic relationship ended up in a bitter court quarrel. Usually the lovers get carried away by their intense feelings for each other causing them to promise each other even the sun, moon and the stars. Or they may also end up engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage due to the promise  to marry the other. If this promise of marriage is broken, can an action be filed by the victim of the broken promise to pay for damages? Can moral damages be recovered because of this breach of promise of marriage? These are the issues discussed and resolved in this case.

This is the case of Jenny who is a 33 years old teacher in a Provincial High School. She has a lot of admirers in her school because she is quite attractive aside from being intelligent. Among those who admire Jenny, is Kay who is ten years younger than Jenny and working as an apprentice pilot in an airline company.  The two lovers eventually became engaged as Jenny gave up teaching for a job as an Insurance agent. Deep intimacy developed between the lovers that ended up in a sexual intercourse one evening after watching a movie in a theater. Thereafter, Jenny told Kay that she was pregnant. So Kay promised to marry her. The child was subsequently born in a private maternity clinic and was named Liza. Later on however, Kay fell in love with Krystal, one of the attractive flight attendants of the passenger plane piloted by Kay.

So three months later Jenny filed a complaint against Kay for the support of her child Liza and for moral damages due to the alleged breach of promise made by Kay to marry her. Kay admitted the paternity of Liza but denied ever having promised to marry Jenny. While the case is still being heard, the court ordered Kay to pay alimony pendent lie each month. In due course, the court later on rendered a decision declaring Liza as the natural daughter of Kay and ordered Kay to pay Jenny monthly support for the child, loss of income that Jenny failed to earn during her pregnancy and moral damages and attorney’s fees. This decision was affirmed by the CA which even increased the amount of moral damages under the provision of Article 2219 par 3 of the Civil Code due to the seduction committed by Kay that caused Jenny to yield to his sexual desires.

The Supreme Court however ruled that the award of moral damages made by the RTC and even increased by the CA for breach of promise to marry is not sanctioned by law. According to the SC, the action for breach of promises to marry has no standing in the civil law apart from the right to recover money or property advanced upon the faith of such promise. The SC likewise ruled that the seduction contemplated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code is the crime punished by the Revised Penal Code which does not exist in the present case. Kay cannot be said to be morally guilty of seduction, not only because he is approximately ten years younger than Jenny, who is 36 years of age and as highly enlightened as a former high school teacher and life insurance agent when she became intimate with Kay who is a mere apprentice pilot. She likewise surrendered herself to Kay because of overwhelming love for him but still wanted to bind him by having a fruit of their engagement even before their marriage. So the award of moral damages by the RTC and the CA is indeed untenable (Hermosisima vs. CA et.al G.R. L-14628, Sept. 30, 1960)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]