Wassmer v. Velez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer agreed to marry, setting September 4, 1954, as their wedding date. Invitations were sent, wedding attire and preparations were made, and bridal showers were held. Two days before the wedding, Velez left a note stating he had to postpone the wedding due to his mother's opposition and left the country. The next day, he sent a telegram assuring Wassmer that nothing had changed and he would return soon. Velez never returned. Procedural History: Wassmer sued Velez for damages. Velez was declared in default for failing to file an answer. The trial court rendered judgment ordering Velez to pay actual damages, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Velez filed a petition for relief from judgment, alleging excusable negligence, claiming his failure to marry was due to fortuitous events or circumstances beyond his control. The trial court denied his petition after several attempts at amicable settlement failed. The Petition: Velez appealed the denial of his petition for relief, arguing that the judgment was void because evidence was adduced before the clerk of court and that the judgment was contrary to law as there is no provision for breach of promise to marry.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for relief from judgment was properly denied due to an insufficient affidavit of merits. Whether the judgment was void because the clerk of court was designated to receive the evidence. Whether a breach of promise to marry, under the specific circumstances of this case, is an actionable wrong. Whether the award of moral and exemplary damages was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment with a modification regarding the amount of moral and exemplary damages. The Court held that while a mere breach of promise to marry is not actionable, Velez's conduct, which involved extensive preparations and public announcement of a wedding only to abandon it days before solemnization, was contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy, thus constituting an actionable wrong under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The award for moral and exemplary damages was reduced from P25,000.00 to P15,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that a petition for relief from judgment must be supported by an affidavit of merits that states facts constituting a valid defense, as required by Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Velez's affidavit merely stated that his failure to marry was due to a "fortuitous event," which is a mere conclusion of law or opinion rather than a statement of facts. Applying the rulings in Cortes v. Co Bun Kim and Vaswani v. P. Tarrachand Bros., the Court ruled that such an affidavit is invalid. Furthermore, Velez's claim of excusable negligence was belied by his repeated failure to appear at court-ordered settlement conferences. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the procedure of designating the clerk of court as a commissioner to receive evidence is expressly sanctioned by the Rules of Court. Citing Province of Pangasinan v. Palisoc, the Court clarified that the trial court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in this delegation. Additionally, the Court held that Velez's consent to this procedure was unnecessary because he had been declared in default. As a party in default, he had no standing in court and was not entitled to participate in the presentation of evidence or receive notice of such procedural steps. On Issue 3: The Court acknowledged the precedent in Hermosisima v. Court of Appeals that a "mere breach of promise to marry" is not actionable. However, it held that the facts of this case went beyond a simple breach. Formally setting a wedding, printing invitations, purchasing communal furniture, and then walking out at the last minute is "palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs." The Court reasoned that such conduct falls squarely under Article 21 of the New Civil Code (NCC), which requires compensation for willful injury caused in a manner contrary to morals or good customs. The action is not for the breach itself, but for the abusive and injurious manner in which the abandonment was executed. On Issue 4: The Court sustained the award of moral and exemplary damages but modified the amount. Under Article 2219 (10) of the New Civil Code (NCC), moral damages are specifically allowed in cases falling under Article 21. Regarding exemplary damages, the Court found that Velez's actions were "wanton, reckless, and oppressive," satisfying the requirement under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code (NCC). Nevertheless, considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Court reduced the combined award of moral and exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P15,000.00, finding the latter more reasonable.
Main Doctrine
While a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, causing loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, such as formally setting a wedding and then walking out of it just before solemnization, is an actionable wrong under Article 21 of the Civil Code, entitling the injured party to damages.