Tanjanco v CA

Facts: Appeal from CA's decision that revoked CFI's dismissal of the action for support and damages.
Tanjanco and Santos were sweethearts and for one year regularly had sexual intercourse allegedly due to
Tanjanco's promise to marry Santos which resulted to Santos getting pregnant which led her to resign from
her job that resulted to Tanjanco being unable to provide for her and the baby. Tanjanco then refused to
marry Santos giving rise to her action for support and damages which was dismissed by the CFI for failure
to state a cause of action. CA agreed with CFI that there was no cause of action to compel recognition of a
child yet unborn nor for its support but that the complaint did state a cause of action for damages
premised on Art. 21 of the CC and so set aside the dismissal and ordered CFI to proceed with the case.
Tanjanco appealed to SC pleading that actions for breach of promise to marry are not permissible, invoking
Estopa v Pinsay, Hermosisima v CA and De Jesus v SyQuia.
Issue: W/N breach of promise to marry is actionable for damages under Art. 21.
Ruling: CA overlooked the Civil Code Commission's objective and example given in incorporating Art. 21
(old CC: Art. 23) referring to a minor who has been seduced. The essential feature is seduction, in law that
is more than mere sexual intercourse or a breach of promise to marry. It connote essentially the idea of
deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman
has yielded. In US v Buenaventura it was held that to constitute seduction, there must be some sufficient
promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of the promise. If she consents merely from
carnal list and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no seduction. In American jurisprudence, the
enticement, persuasion or deception is the essence of the injury and a mere proof of intercourse is
insufficient to warrant a recover.
Santos' conduct, a woman of adult age maintaining intimate sexual relations with repeated acts of
intercourse is incompatible with the idea of seduction. Plainly there is voluntariness and mutual passion,
for had she been deceived, had she surrendered exclusively because of deceit, she would not have again
yielded to his embraces, much less for one year, without exacting early fulfillment of the alleged promise
of married and would have cut all sexual relations upon finding that Tanjanco did not intend to fulfill his
promises. The action for damages under Art. 21 will not prosper and CFI was correct in dismissing the
complaint for lack of cause of action without prejudice to the future child's rights. CA's decision is
reveersed and CFI's decision is affirmed.