8/24/2017 G.R. No.

L-18630

TodayisThursday,August24,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L18630December17,1966

APOLONIOTANJANCO,petitioner,
vs.

HON.COURTOFAPPEALSandARACELISANTOS,respondents.

P.CarreonandG.O.Veneracion,Jr.forpetitioner.
AntonioV.Bonoanforrespondents.

REYES,J.B.L.,J.:

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals (in its Case No. 27210R) revoking an order of the Court of First
InstanceofRizal(inCivilCaseNo.Q4797)dismissingappellant'sactionforsupportanddamages.

The essential allegations of the complaint are to the effect that, from December, 1957, the defendant (appellee
herein),ApolonioTanjanco,courtedtheplaintiff,AraceliSantos,bothbeingofadultagethat"defendantexpressed
andprofessedhisundyingloveandaffectionforplaintiffwhoalsoinduetimereciprocatedthetenderfeelings"that
inconsiderationofdefendant'spromiseofmarriageplaintiffconsentedandaccededtodefendant'spleasforcarnal
knowledge that regularly until December 1959, through his protestations of love and promises of marriage,
defendantsucceededinhavingcarnalaccesstoplaintiff,asaresultofwhichthelatterconceivedachildthatdueto
herpregnantcondition,toavoidembarrassmentandsocialhumiliation,plaintiffhadtoresignherjobassecretaryin
IBM Philippines, Inc., where she was receiving P230.00 a month that thereby plaintiff became unable to support
herself and her baby that due to defendant's refusal to marry plaintiff, as promised, the latter suffered mental
anguish,besmirchedreputation,woundedfeelings,moralshock,andsocialhumiliation.Theprayerwasforadecree
compellingthedefendanttorecognizetheunbornchildthatplaintiffwasbearingtopayhernotlessthanP430.00a
monthforhersupportandthatofherbaby,plusP100,000.00inmoralandexemplarydamages,plusP10,000.00
attorney'sfees.

Upondefendant'smotiontodismiss,thecourtoffirstinstancedismissedthecomplaintforfailuretostateacauseof
action.

PlaintiffSantosdulyappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,andthelatterultimatelydecidedthecase,holdingwiththe
lowercourtthatnocauseofactionwasshowntocompelrecognitionofachildasyetunborn,norforitssupport,but
decreedthatthecomplaintdidstateacauseofactionfordamages,premisedonArticle21oftheCivilCodeofthe
Philippines,prescribingasfollows:

ART.21.Anypersonwhowilfullycauseslossorinjurytoanotherinamannerthatiscontrarytomorals,good
customsorpublicpolicyshallcompensatethelatterforthedamage.

The Court of Appeals, therefore, entered judgment setting aside the dismissal and directing the court of origin to
proceedwiththecase.

Defendant,inturn,appealedtothisCourt,pleadingthatactionsforbreachofapromisetomarryarenotpermissible
in this jurisdiction, and invoking the rulings of this Court in Estopa vs. Piansay, L14733, September 30, 1960
Hermosisimavs.CourtofAppeals,L14628,January29,1962andDeJesusvs.SyQuia,58Phil.886.

Wefindthisappealmeritorious.

Inholdingthatthecomplaintstatedacauseofactionfordamages,underArticle21abovementioned,theCourtof
Appeals relied upon and quoted from the memorandum submitted by the Code Commission to the Legislature in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/dec1966/gr_18630_1966.html 1/3
8/24/2017 G.R. No. L-18630
1949tosupporttheoriginaldraftoftheCivilCode.ReferringtoArticle23ofthedraft(nowArticle21oftheCode),
theCommissionstated:

ButtheCodeCommissionhasgonefartherthanthesphereofwrongsdefinedordeterminedbypositivelaw.
Fully sensible that there are countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs
helpless,eventhoughtheyhaveactuallysufferedmaterialandmoralinjury,theCommissionhasdeemedit
necessary,intheinterestofjustice,toincorporateintheproposedCivilCodethefollowingrule:

"ART. 23. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicyshallcompensatethelatterforthedamage."

Anexamplewillillustratethepurviewoftheforegoingnorm:"A"seducesthenineteenyearolddaughterof
"X". A promise of marriage either has not been made, or can not be proved. The girl becomes pregnant.
Underthe presentlaws,thereisnocrime,asthe girlisaboveeighteenyearsofage.Neithercananycivil
action for breach of promise of marriage be filed. Therefore, though the grievous moral wrong has been
committed,andthoughthegirlandherfamilyhavesufferedincalculablemoraldamage,sheandherparents
cannotbringanyactionfordamages.Butundertheproposedarticle,sheandherparentswouldhavesucha
rightofaction.

TheCourtofAppealsseemstohaveoverlookedthattheexamplesetforthintheCodeCommission'smemorandum
refersto atortuponaminorwhohasbeenseduced. The essential feature is seduction, that in law is more than
meresexualintercourse,orabreachofapromiseofmarriageitconnotesessentiallytheideaofdeceit,enticement,
superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded (U.S. vs.
Buenaventura,27Phil.121U.S.vs.Arlante,9Phil.595).

IthasbeenruledintheBuenaventuracase(supra)that

To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman
must yield because of the promise or other inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the
intercourseisfrommutualdesire,thereisnoseduction(43Cent.Dig.tit.Seduction,par.56).Shemustbe
inducedtodepartfromthepathofvirtuebytheuseofsomespeciesofarts,persuasionsandwiles,whichare
calculated to have and do have that effect, and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the
sexualembracesofherseducer(27Phil.123).

AndinAmericanJurisprudencewefind:

Ontheotherhand,inanactionbythewoman,theenticement,persuasionordeceptionistheessenceofthe
injuryandamereproofofintercourseisinsufficienttowarrantarecover.

Accordinglyitisnotseductionwherethewillingnessarisesoutofsexualdesireorcuriosityofthefemale,and
the defendant merely affords her the needed opportunity for the commission of the act. It has been
emphasizedthattoallowarecoveryinallsuchcaseswouldtendtothedemoralizationofthefemalesex,and
would be a reward for unchastity by which a class of adventuresses would be swift to profit." (47 Am. Jur.
662)

Bearingtheseprinciplesinmind,letusexaminethecomplaint.Thematerialallegationsthereareasfollows:

I.Thattheplaintiffisoflegalage,single,andresidingat56SouthE.Diliman,QuezonCity,whiledefendantis
alsooflegalage,singleandresidingat525PadreFaura,Manila,wherehemaybeservedwithsummons

II.ThattheplaintiffandthedefendantbecameacquaintedwitheachothersometimeinDecember,1957and
soonthereafter,thedefendantstartedvisitingandcourtingtheplaintiff

III. That the defendant's visits were regular and frequent and in due time the defendant expressed and
professedhisundyingloveandaffectionfortheplaintiffwhoalsoinduetimereciprocatedthetenderfeelings

IV.Thatinthecourseoftheirengagement,theplaintiffandthedefendantasarewontofyoungpeopleinlove
hadfrequentoutingsanddates,becameverycloseandintimatetoeachotherandsometimeinJuly,1958,in
consideration of the defendant's promises of marriage, the plaintiff consented and acceded to the former's
earnestandrepeatedpleastohavecarnalknowledgewithhim

V.ThatsubsequenttheretoandregularlyuntilaboutJuly,1959exceptforashortperiodinDecember,1958
whenthedefendantwasoutofthecountry,thedefendantthroughhisprotestationsofloveandpromisesof
marriagesucceededinhavingcarnalknowledgewiththeplaintiff

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/dec1966/gr_18630_1966.html 2/3
8/24/2017 G.R. No. L-18630
VI. That as a result of their intimate relationship, the plaintiff started conceiving which was confirmed by a
doctorsometimeinJuly,1959

VII.Thatuponbeingcertainofherpregnantcondition,theplaintiffinformedthedefendantandpleadedwith
himtomakegoodhispromisesofmarriage,butinsteadofhonoringhispromisesandrightinghiswrong,the
defendantstoppedandrefrainedfromseeingtheplaintiffsinceaboutJuly,1959hasnotvisitedtheplaintiff
andtoallintentsandpurposeshasbrokentheirengagementandhispromises.

Overandabovethepartisanallegations,thefactsstandoutthatforonewholeyear,from1958to1959,theplaintiff
appellee, a woman of adult age, maintained intimate sexual relations with appellant, with repeated acts of
intercourse.Suchconductisincompatiblewiththeideaofseduction.Plainlythereisherevoluntarinessandmutual
passion for had the appellant been deceived, had she surrendered exclusively because of the deceit, artful
persuasionsandwilesofthedefendant,shewouldnothaveagainyieldedtohisembraces,muchlessforoneyear,
withoutexactingearlyfulfillmentoftheallegedpromisesofmarriage,andwouldhavecutchartallsexualrelations
uponfindingthatdefendantdidnotintendtofulfillhispromises.Hence,weconcludethatnocaseismadeunder
Article21oftheCivilCode,andnoothercauseofactionbeingalleged,noerrorwascommittedbytheCourtofFirst
Instanceindismissingthecomplaint.

Ofcourse,thedismissalmustbeunderstoodaswithoutprejudicetowhateveractionsmaycorrespondtothechild
oftheplaintiffagainstthedefendantappellant,ifany.Onthatpoint,thisCourtmakesnopronouncement,sincethe
child'sownrightsarenothereinvolved.

FORTHEFOREGOINGREASONS,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisreversed,andthatoftheCourtofFirst
Instanceisaffirmed.Nocosts.

Concepcion,C.J.,Barrera,Dizon,Regala,Makalintal,Bengzon,J.P.,Zaldivar,SanchezandCastro,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/dec1966/gr_18630_1966.html 3/3