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

Wassmer V Velez GR No L 20089 December 26 1964

Velez and Wassmer were engaged to be married but two days before the wedding, Velez left a note saying he had to postpone it because his mother opposed the marriage. Velez then disappeared. Wassmer sued for damages and the trial court found Velez liable. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Velez's actions breached the promise to marry and caused injury to Wassmer contrary to good customs, entitling her to damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code.

Uploaded by

Freedom Doctama
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views1 page

Wassmer V Velez GR No L 20089 December 26 1964

Velez and Wassmer were engaged to be married but two days before the wedding, Velez left a note saying he had to postpone it because his mother opposed the marriage. Velez then disappeared. Wassmer sued for damages and the trial court found Velez liable. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Velez's actions breached the promise to marry and caused injury to Wassmer contrary to good customs, entitling her to damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code.

Uploaded by

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

Wassmer v.

Velez Issue: W/N Velez is liable for paying damages to Wassmer due to breach in
GR. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964 promise to marry?
Petitioner: Beatriz Wassmer
Respondent: Francisco Velez Held: YES. CFI ruling is affirmed.

Facts: Velez and Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided Ratio: Mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong,
to get married in 1954. However, two days before the wedding, Velez left a however Art. 21 of the NCC provides that any person who willfully causes
note saying that the wedding had to be postponed because his mother loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs
opposes it. Velez was never heard from again. or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Evidence reveals
that the parties applied for a marriage license, commenced preparations for
Wassmer sued Velez for damages, but he filed no answer and was declared in the wedding, bridal showers happened, and yet Velez simply left with a note
default. CFI ordered defendant to pay Wassmer actual, moral, and exemplary that states that the wedding must be postponed because his mother opposes
damages. Defendant then filed a petition for relief and Wassmer moved to it.
strike it out. Velez’ counsel motioned to defer the resolution on Velez’
petition for relief, to sort out the possibility of an amicable settlement. CFI Surely, this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. But the above is
granted this, but it was parties were not able to meet due to absence of Velez. palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs.
CFI gave another chance for amicable settlement, but Velez counsel said this
would no longer be possible. CFI then denied Velez’ petition for relief. Velez
raised to SC. Moral damages are recoverable under Art. 21.

You might also like