Search for Cases and Other Legal Resources
Wassmer vs Velez
12 scra 648
Breach of Promise to Marry
Franciso Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided to get married and set September 4, 1954 as the big day. On September 2, 1954 Velez left a note to her that they have to postpone their wedding because his mother opposed it. And on the next day he sent her the following telegram “Nothing changed rest assured returning very soon apologize mama papa love Paking”. Thereafter Velez did not appear nor was he heard from again, sued by Beatrice for damages, Velez filed no answer and was declared in default. The record reveals that on August 23, 1954, plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued. Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances. The bride-to-be’s trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased. Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared, but two days before the wedding he never returned and was never heard from again.
ISSUE: Whether or not in the case at bar, is a case of mere breach of promise to marry.
HELD: Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. 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 palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid. The lower court’s judgment is hereby affirmed.
Find Uber Digests on Facebook!
Digests and other resources within this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License unless otherwise indicated.