Bunag Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

101749 July 10, 1992

Facts:
Conrado Bunag Jr. and Zenaida Cirilo were sweethearts. On September 8, 1973, Bunag, Jr.
abducted and brought Cirilo to the motel where he deflowered her against her will and consent. Then,
after promising to marry Cirilo, Bunag Jr. brought her to the house of his grandmother in Pamplona, Las
Pias, where they lived together.
On September 29, 1973, Bunag Jr. left and never returned. Cirilo filed a complaint for damages
for breach of promise to marry against Bunag, Jr. and his father Bunag, Sr., who allegedly condoned and
supported his sons promise to marry Cirilo. On August 20, 1983, after finding that Bunag Jr. had forcibly
abducted and raped Cirilo, the trial court rendered a decision ordering Bunag, Jr. to pay her P80,000.00 as
moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, among others. Bunag, Sr. was absolved from any and
all liability. Bunag Jr. appealed the decision to Court of Appeals, but the appellate court affirmed in toto
the judgment of the trial court. Bunag Jr. filed this petition for review from the decision of the Court of
Appeals. Aside from raising pure questions of fact, which the Supreme Court refused to settle, Bunag Jr.
asserted that since the action involves a breach of promise to marry, the trial court erred in awarding
damages.
Issue:
W/N a mere breach of promise to marry is an actionable wrong.
Ruling:
Generally, a breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable, except where the plaintiff has
actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof.
However, the award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified in or analogous to those
provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Correlatively, under Article 21 of said Code, in relation to
paragraph 10 of said Article 2219, any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for moral damages.
Article 21 was adopted to remedy the countless gaps in the statutes which leave so many victims of moral
wrongs helpless even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, and is intended to
vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically provide for in the statutes. The acts of Bunag Jr. irremissibly constitute acts
contrary to morals and good customs.
Petition is denied.
Note:

It is not now necessary that a criminal prosecution for rape be first instituted and prosecuted to final
judgment before a civil action based on said offense in favor of the offended woman can likewise be
instituted and prosecuted to final judgment.
Moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant but to compensate the plaintiff for injuries he
may have suffered.

Case for Article 21 of the Civil Code

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
July 10, 1992
CONRADO BUNAG, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, First Division, and ZENAIDA
CIRILO
REGALADO, J:
PETITION: reversal of CA decision on May 17, 1991 which affirmed the decision of RTC
Branch XI at Bacoor, Cavite
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant: Zenaida Cirilo (26 years old, Commerce college graduate)
Defendant-appellant: Conrado Bunag, Jr. & Conrado Bunag, Sr.
The plaintiff-appellants story:
o In the afternoon (4:00pm) of September 8, 1973, Cirilo was walking on her way
to San Juan de Dios canteen for merienda when Bunag (Jr.) came in a car with an
unidentified male companion.
o It was established that Cirilo and Bunag were sweethearts but had a quarrel two
weeks before that day. He invited her to Aristocrat Restaurant to talk things over.
She obliged because she believed in his sincerity.
o Upon reaching San Juan St. in Pasay City, the car abruptly turned right. Cirilo
protested but was frightened by the threats of the two, saying that she should not
make any noise as they would bump the car against the post in the street if she
did.
o They went through F.B. Harrison Blvd. and reached a motel. Cirilo was dragged
from the car and taken inside the motel where Bunag deflowered her against her
will and consent. Despite her struggles, she could not match the strength of the
two men being a woman with small stature. Bunag forced her to lie down while
his companion removed her panty and then left. Bunag said his companion would
come back and hold her feet if she did not surrender her virginity.
o Plaintiff described the pains she felt and how blood came out of her private parts
after her vagina was penetrated by the penis of defendant Bunag, Jr.
o Cirilo pleaded Bunag to allow her to go home but he said he would only let her go
after they married.
o They went to Bunags grandmother Juana de Leons house in Pamplona, Las
Pias, arriving at 9:30 p.m. About 10 p.m., Conrado Bunag, Sr. arrived and said
that Cirilo and Bunag would apply for a marriage license tomorrow (Monday) at
Bacoor.
o After filing, they went to live at Juana de Leons house as husband and wife from
Sept. 8, 1973 to Sept. 29, 1973. On Sept. 29, Bunag left and never returned. On
Oct. 3, 1973, Cirilo went back to her parents.

o Plaintiff was ashamed when she went home and could not sleep and eat because
of the deception done against her by the defendant-appellants.
o Cirilos Uncle Vivencio Bansagan affirmed in testimony that on Sept. 8 she
arrived at home at 9 p.m. His efforts to search for her were unsuccessful. He told
Cirilos mother that she might have married. In the afternoon of the next day
(Sunday), Ligas, Bacoor, Cavite barrio captain Jacinto Manalili and Francisco
Cabrera informed Cirilos mother that Cirilo and Bunag were at Cabreras house.
The uncle went to the house at the request of his sister and found them. At De
Leons house, he met Bunag Sr. who said, Pare, the children are here already. Let
us settle the matter and have them married.
o Cirilo talked to her uncle, saying she lost her honor and she would bear her
sufferings as both Bunag and his father promised marriage.
The defendant-appellants story:
o Conrado Bunag, Jr. denies the abduction and rape of Cirilo. Bunag claims that
they eloped on Sept. 8 because his father opposed the relationship.
o The defendants insist that the couple made prior plans to elope and get married.
These were known to some friends, including Architect Chito Rodriguez.
o Guillermo Ramos, Jr. accompanied his friend, the defendant, to meet Cirilo and
her officemate, Lydia, in the vicinity of San Juan de Dios Hospital. They
proceeded to have merienda at its canteen then Ramos took Lydia to Quirino Ave.
for her to get a ride home. Then Cirilo and Bunag went to Golden Gate and
Flamingo Hotels but it was full. They proceeded to Holiday Hotel. After three
hours, they went to Juana de Leons house and stayed until Sept. 19.
o Defendant-appellant claims that bitter disagreements with the plaintiff-appellant
over money and the threats made to his life prompted him to break off their plan
to get married.
o Bunag Sr. denied having gone to De Leons house and promising that the couple
would be married. He said he called Atty. Conrado Adreneda, Bunag Jr.s
employer (Mandala Corp.), thrice between Sept. 8 to 9, asking for his sons
whereabouts. He was told of the elopement on the afternoon of Sept. 9 by his
mother Candida Gawaran. He also denied having met with Cirilos relatives and
agreeing to their plans for marriage.
Other details:
o Cirilo filed for damages for alleged breach of promise to marry against the
petitioners.
o August 20, 1983: trial court found that petitioner abducted and raped respondent.
Bunag Sr. was absolved from any and all liability.
o Moral damages: P80,000
o Exemplary damages: P20,000
o Way of Temperate damages: P20,000
o Attorneys fees and costs of suit: P10,000
o Respondent appeals lower courts decision in absolving Bunag Sr. from liability.
Bunags claimed trial court erred:
o 1) in finding that defendant-appellant Bunag Jr. forcibly abducted and raped
plaintiff-appellant

o 2) in finding that defendants-appellants promised plaintiff-appellant that she

would be wed to defendant-appellant Conrado Bunag, Jr.
o 3) in awarding plaintiff-appellant damages for the breach of defendantsappellants' promise of marriage
May 17, 1991: CA dismissed both appeals and affirmed RTCs decision.

Bunag Jr. with petition for review contends that:

1) respondent court failed to consider vital exhibits, testimonies and incidents for petitioner's
defense, resulting in the misapprehensions of facts and violative of the law on preparation of
judgment
2) it erred in the application of the proper law and jurisprudence by holding that there was
forcible abduction with rape, not just a simple elopement and an agreement to marry, and in the
award of excessive damages
RULINGS
o Petitioner argues that both courts did not consider the alleged facts that Cirilo agreed to
marry and that it was a case of simple elopement and agreement to marry.
o What the petitioner would want this Court to do is to evaluate and analyze anew the
evidence, both testimonial and documentary, presented before
o The Supreme Court said statutory and jurisprudential mandate that findings of fact of
the Court of Appeals are, as a rule, conclusive upon this Court. Only questions of law,
distinctly set forth, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, subject to clearly settled exceptions in case law.
o It is not its function to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction
being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by lower court.
o The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals in favor of Cirilo.
o Petitioner also claims that the trial court erred in awarding damages in the breach of
promise to marry.
o we adhere to the time-honored rule that an action for breach of promise to
marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the right to recover money or
property advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise.
o It is only when the plaintiff has to recover the wedding expenses he incurred that
civil action is valid.
o However, award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified in Article 2219 of Civil
Code. Further, pursuant to Article 21 of the Civil Code, in relation to par. 10 of Art. 2219,
any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for moral damages.
o Article 21 was adopted to remedy the countless gaps in the statutes which leave
so many victims of moral wrongs helpless even though they have actually
suffered material and moral injury, and is intended to vouchsafe adequate legal
remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically provide for in the statutes.
o Under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, the acts of petitioner in
forcibly abducting private respondent and having carnal knowledge with her

against her will, and thereafter promising to marry her in order to escape
criminal liability, only to thereafter renege on such promise after cohabiting
with her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constitute acts contrary to morals
and good customs.
o Generally, every person criminally liable for felony is also civilly liable. Criminal
liability will five rise to civil liability only if the criminal act results in damage or
injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof.