[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
211 views1 page

Topic: Consent Freely Given Acts: Case Facts Issues Ruling

Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer planned to marry on September 4, 1954 but Velez left a note postponing the wedding due to his mother's opposition and did not appear. Wassmer sued for damages. The issues were whether breach of promise to marry is actionable and if Velez was liable. The court ruled that formally planning a wedding and backing out at the last minute is unjustifiable and causes humiliation, so breach of promise to marry was actionable in this case. Velez was ordered to pay actual damages for expenses, moral damages for humiliation, and exemplary damages for fraudulent actions.

Uploaded by

A M I R A
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
211 views1 page

Topic: Consent Freely Given Acts: Case Facts Issues Ruling

Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer planned to marry on September 4, 1954 but Velez left a note postponing the wedding due to his mother's opposition and did not appear. Wassmer sued for damages. The issues were whether breach of promise to marry is actionable and if Velez was liable. The court ruled that formally planning a wedding and backing out at the last minute is unjustifiable and causes humiliation, so breach of promise to marry was actionable in this case. Velez was ordered to pay actual damages for expenses, moral damages for humiliation, and exemplary damages for fraudulent actions.

Uploaded by

A M I R A
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

             Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable


                Francisco Velez and Beatriz wrong. But formally set a wedding and go through all the necessary
Wassmer, following their mutual promise preparations and publicity and only to walk out of it when matrimony is about
of love decided to get married on to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpable and unjustifiable to good
September 4, 1954. On the day of the customs which holds liability in accordance with Art. 21 on the New Civil Code.
Topic: Consent supposed marriage, Velez left a note for
The mere fact the couple have already filed a marriage license and
Freely Given Acts  Whether or not
his bride-to-be that day to postpone their already spent for invitations, wedding apparels, gives the plaintiff reason to
breach of promise
wedding because his mother opposes it. demand for payment of damages. The court affirmed the and ordered the
to marry is an
Therefore, Velez did not appear and was defendant to pay the plaintiff moral damages for the humiliation she suffered;
Wassmer actionable wrong
not heard from again. actual damages for the expenses incurred and exemplary damages because
in this case.
                Beatriz sued Velez for the defendant acted fraudulently in making the plaintiff believe that he will
vs.
damages and Velez failed to answer and come back and the wedding will push through.

Velez was declared in default. Judgement was                 When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under the same,
rendered ordering the defendant to pay moral and exemplary damages may not be awarded when it is proven that the
plaintiff  P2.000 as actual damages defendanr clearly  acted in wanton, reckless and oppressive manner.
G.R. No. L-20089
P25,000 as moral and exemplary
damages, P2,500 as attorney’s fees.
December 26, 1964                 Later, an attempt by the Court
for amicable settlement was given
chance but failed, thereby rendered
judgment hence this appeal.

You might also like