Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Gashem Shookat Baksh vs.

Article 21 of the Civil Code
This is an appeal by certiorari. On October 27, 1987, without the assistance of
counsel, private respondent filed with the aforesaid trial court a complaint for
damages against petitioner for the alleged violation of their agreement to get
married. She alleges in said complaint that she is 20 years old, single, Filipino
and a pretty lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her
country; other petitioner, on the other hand, is an Iranian citizen residing at
Lozano Apartments, Guilig, Dagupan City, and is an exchange student, before
August 20, 1987 the latter courted and proposed to marry her, she accepted his
love on the condition that they get married; they therefore agreed to get
married. The petitioner forced her to live with him in the Lozano apartments. She
was a virgin at that time; after a week before the filing of complaint, petitioners
attitude towards her started to change. He maltreated and threatened to kill her;
as a result of the complaint. Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and
asked her not to live with him anymore and that the petitioner is already married
to someone in Bacolod City. Private respondent then prayed for judgment
ordering petitioner to pay her damages. On the other hand, petitioner claimed
that he never proposed marriage to or agreed to be married with the private
respondent and denied all allegations against him. After trial on the merits, the
lower court ordered petitioner to pay the private respondent damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 21 of the Civil Code applies to the case at bar.
HELD: The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong. Notwithstanding, Article 21, which is designed to expand the
concepts of torts and quasi-delicts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal
remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books. Article 2176
of the Civil Code, which defines quasi-delicts thus:
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
In the light of the above laudable purpose of Article 21, the court held that
where a mans promise to marry in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of
his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter
becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in sexual
congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the
promise was only subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to
accept him and obtain her consent to sexual act could justify the award of
damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such breach of promise of
marriage but because of the fraud and deceit behind it, and the willful injury to
her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential however, that
such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, or public policy.

On October 13, 1994, Mr. Reyes (Amay Bisaya) went to Mrs. Tsuruokas (former
owner of Hotel Nikko) party, allegedly under Dr. Violeta Filarts (guest) verbal
invitation that same afternoon. Ruby Lim (executive secretary of Hotel Nikko for
20 yrs.) knowing that the guest list was limited to approximately 60 people and
that Mr. Reyes was not one of those invited, asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party.
Mr. Reyes began screaming and making a big scene. After that he said that he
was humiliated in the party and was rudely asked to leave
On April 26, 1999, RTC ruled that Ms. Lim did not about her right to ask Mr.
Reyes to leave the party as she talked to him politely and discreetly.
On November 26, 2002, Court of appeals ruled that Ms.Lim is liable for damages
as she needlessly embarrassed Mr. Reyes in telling him not to finish his food and
to leave the place within the hearing distance of the guests.
Whether or not Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party
where he was not invited by the celebrant, thereby becoming liable under Article
19 and 21 of the Civil Code.
Supreme Court held that Ms Lim could not be held liable. The petition filed by
Ruby Lim and Nikko Hotels is granted.
He who alleges proves, Mr. Reyes had not presented any witness to back his
story up. A complaint based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code must
necessarily fail if it has nothing to recommend it but innuendos and conjectures.
Without proof of any ill motive in her part, if at all Ms. Lim is only guilty of bad
judgment, which if done with good intention cannot amount to bad faith.


On February 24, 1948, Vicenta Escao, 27, Marries Pastos Tenchavez, 32. The
marriage was kept secret to the parents of Escao. When Escaos parents
about it, they asked for the recelebration of the matrimony which did not took
Vicenta left for the states without informing Pastor.

On August 22, 1950, she filled a verified complaint for divorce against Pastor in
the second Judicial District Court in Nevada on the ground of extreme cruelty,
entirely mental in character.

On October 21, 1950, a decree of divorce was issued. On September 13, 1954,
Escao married an American and had children and later acquired American

Whether or not the divorce and the second marriage of Escao were valid.
Whether or not sexual infidelity of Escao may be invoked by Tenchavez as a
ground for legal separation.

The Supreme Court held that the divorce is not valid, making the second
marriage void since marriage ties of Escao and Tenchaves is existing.
Tenchavez can file a petition for legal separation because Escao committed
sexual infidelity because of
the fact that she had children with the American. Sexual infidelity of a spouse is
one of the grounds for legal separation.

University of the East vs Jader

Article 19 of the Civil Code
Facts: Petitioner was enrolled in the defendants College of Law. He failed to
take the regular examination in Practice Court 1 for which he was given an
incomplete grade. He enrolled for the second semester as a fourth year student,
and filed an application for the removal of the incomplete grade which was
approved by the Dean. In the meantime, the faculty members and the Dean met
to deliberate who among the fourth year students should be allowed to
graduate. The plaintiffs name appeared on the tentative list, he also attended
the investiture ceremonies to which he tendered blowout afterwards. He
thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination and took review classes.
However, he was not able to take the bar examination because his academic
requirements is not complete. Consequently, respondent sued petitioner for
damages alleging that he suffered moral shock besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, sleepless nights, when he was not able to take the 1988 bar
examinations arising from the latters negligence. He prayed for an award of
moral damages, unrealized income, attorneys fees and cost of suit.
ISSUE: Whether or not an educational institution be held liable for damages for
misleading a student into believing that the latter had satisfied all the
requirements for graduation when such is not the case.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that UE is liable for damages. It is the
contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and furnish sufficient notice
and information to each and every student as to where he or she had already
complied with the entire requirement for the conferment of a degree or whether
they should be included among those who will graduate. The school cannot be
said to have acted in good faith. Absence of good faith must be sufficiently
established for a successful prosecution by the aggrieved party in suit for abuse
of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code.

Похожие интересы