WASSMER VS.

VELEZ
Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love decided to get married on
September 4, 1954. On the day of the supposed marriage, Velez left a note for his bride-to-be that day to
postpone their wedding because his mother opposes it. Therefore, Velez did not appear and was not heard from
again.

The defendant filed an MR, asserting that the judgment is contrary to law. The reason given is that “there is no
provision of the Civil Code authorizing” an action for breach of promise to marry. According to the previous
rulings of the SC, it was reiterated that a “mere breach of a promise to marry” is not an actionable wrong. The
defendant pointed out that Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the new Civil Code the provisions
that would have it so.

ISSUE
WON the breach of promise to marry in this particular case is an actionable wrong

RULING
Yes. The Court ruled that this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. This is unjustifiably contrary
to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 of the
NCC.
In this case, when the wedding was set, invitations were already printed out, and were distributed to relatives,
friends, and acquaintances.

Party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased. Dresses for the maid of honor and
the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and
gifts received. And then, 2 days before the wedding, the defendant just simply left a note postponing the
wedding because of the opposition of his mother.

Moreover, 1 day before the wedding, the defendant gave a message that nothing has changed, and rest assured
that he would be returning soon. But he never returned and was never heard from again.

Under art. 21 of the NCC, “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 the damage.”

As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go
through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to
be solemnized, is quite different. This is unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be
held answerable