Recovery of damages for breach of promise to marry based on Article 21 of the Civil Code
Summary
An Iranian medical student promised marriage to a Filipino woman, lived with her after she surrendered her virginity, then refused to marry her. She sued for damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court held that while breach of promise to marry is generally not actionable, Article 21 applies when the promise involves fraud and deceit to obtain sexual relations, constituting moral seduction rather than mutual lust. The Court distinguished this case from mutual consent, finding the defendant made fraudulent representations to an innocent woman contrary to morals and good customs. The decision emphasizes protection of Filipino women from foreign exploitation and abuse of hospitality, affirming awards for moral damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
Focus of dispute
Recovery of damages for breach of promise to marry based on Article 21 of the Civil Code
Legal facts
Iranian medical student Gashem Shookat Baksh courted Filipino woman Marilou Gonzales in 1987. He promised marriage, visited her family to seek approval, and they lived together. She was a virgin before their relationship. He later refused to marry her, claiming he was already married to someone in Bacolod City. She filed for damages alleging moral seduction and deceit. Petitioner denied the allegations, claiming she deceived him and stole his money and passport.
Judgement and reasoning
{"Court of Appeals (CA)": "Affirmed RTC decision in toto. Found that plaintiff was not a woman of loose morals, was a virgin before the relationship, and that petitioner's fraudulent promises of marriage constituted moral seduction. Concluded that petitioner's acts were against morals, good customs and public policy, especially coming from a foreigner abusing Filipino hospitality.", "Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pangasinan (Branch 38)": "Ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding that petitioner made fraudulent promises to marry through deceit and false pretenses, causing plaintiff to surrender her virginity. Applied Article 21 of the Civil Code, finding petitioner's acts contrary to morals, good customs and traditions. Awarded P20,000 moral damages, P3,000 attorney's fees and P2,000 litigation expenses.", "Supreme Court (SC)": "Denied petition and affirmed CA decision. Held that while breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable, Article 21 of the Civil Code applies when the promise was made with fraud and deceit to obtain sexual congress. Distinguished this from mutual lust, finding this was moral seduction of an innocent woman. Rejected pari delicto defense, noting plaintiff was less guilty and acted due to moral seduction, not pure lust."}