007 GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES,

respondents.
[GRNo.97336;February19,1993]
TOPIC:
PONENTE:DAVIDE,JR.,J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES:(ifapplicable)

FACTS:
1. InAugust1986,whileworkingasawaitressinDagupanCity,Pangasinan,MarilouGonzales,then21yearsold,metGashem
ShookatBaksh,a29yearoldexchangestudentfromIranwhowasstudyingmedicineinDagupan.Thetwogotreallycloseand
intimate. OnMarilous account, she said that Gashem later offered tomarry her at the end ofthe semester. Marilou then
introducedGashemtoherparentswheretheyexpressedtheirintentiontogetmarried.Marilousparentsthenstartedinviting
sponsorsandrelativestothewedding.Theyevenstartedlookingforanimalstoslaughterfortheoccasion.
2. Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment where they had sexual intercourse. But in no time, their
relationshipwentsourasGashembeganmaltreatingMarilou.GashemeventuallyrevokedhispromiseofmarryingMarilouand
hetoldherthatheisalreadymarriedtosomeoneinBacolodCity.SoMarilouwenthomeandlatersuedGashemfordamages.
3. ThetrialcourtruledinfavorofMarilouandawardedherP20kinmoraldamages.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecisionof
thetrialcourt.
4. Onappeal,GashemaverredthatheneverproposedmarriagetoMarilouandthathecannotbeadjudgedtohaveviolatedFilipino
customsandtraditionssincehe,beinganIranian,wasnotfamiliarwithFilipinocustomsandtraditions.
ISSUE(S):Whetherbreachofpromisetomarrycangiverisetocausefordamages.
HELD:No.Breachofpromisetomarryisnotanactionablewrongperse.Inthiscase,itisthedeceitandfraudemployedbyGashem
thatconstitutesaviolationofArticle21oftheCivilCodewhichwarrantstheawardofdamages.
RATIO:
Breachofpromisetomarryisnotanactionablewrongperse.Inthiscase,itisthedeceitandfraudemployedbyGashemthat
constitutesaviolationofArticle21oftheCivilCodewhichprovidesthatAnypersonwhowilfullycauseslossorinjuryto
anotherinamannerthatiscontrarytomorals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicyshallcompensatethelatterforthedamage.
HispromiseofmarryingMarilouwasadeceitfulschemetolureherintosexualcongress.Asfoundbythetrialcourt,Marilouwas
notawomanofloosemorals.ShewasavirginbeforeshemetGashem.ShewouldnothavesurrenderedherselftoGashemhad
Gashem not promised tomarry her. Gashems blatant disregard of Filipinotraditions onmarriage and on the reputationof
Filipinasiscontrarytomorals,goodcustoms,andpublicpolicy.Asaforeignerwhoisenjoyingthehospitalityofourcountryand
eventakingadvantageoftheopportunitytostudyhereheisexpectedtorespectourtraditions.Anyactcontrarywillrenderhim
liableunderArticle21oftheCivilCode.
TheSupremeCourtalsoelucidatedthatArticle21wasmeanttoexpandtheconceptsoftortsandquasidelict.Itismeanttocover
situationssuchasthiscasewherethebreachcomplainedofisnotstrictlycoveredbyexistinglaws.Itwasmeantasa legalremedy
fortheuntoldnumberofmoralwrongswhichisimpossibleforhumanforesighttospecificallyenumerateandpunishinthestatute
bookssuchastheabsenceofalawpenalizingathebreachofpromisetomarry.
TheSupremeCourthoweveragreedwithlegalluminariesthatifthepromisetomarrywasmadeandtherewascarnalknowledge
becauseofit,thenmoraldamagesmayberecovered(presenceofmoralorcriminalseduction),Exceptiftherewasmutuallust;or
ifexpensesweremadebecauseofthepromise(expensesforthewedding),thenactualdamagesmayberecovered.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):