Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Article/s invoked
Article 21, Civil Code; any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Case Summary
This is an appeal to revoke the decision of the Court of Appeals and to reinstate the decision of the Court of
First Instance dismissing the case. Tanjanco (then-appellee) was accused by Araceli Santos (then-plaintiff) of
seducing her with a promise to marry. Santos and Tanjanco engaged in intercourse for a year, after which
she got pregnant with his child. Tanjanco didn’t fulfill his promise to marry Santos, hence her petition suing
for moral damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code, alleging that she was seduced. Court of First Instance
dismissed the case, but Santos brought the case to the Court of Appeals, who then set aside the dismissal and
directed the court of origin to proceed with the case. Defendant Tanjaco appealed with the Supreme Court,
pleading that the breach of promise to marry was not under the jurisdiction of Article 21. The Supreme Court
found this meritorious. There was no seduction as both were two consenting adults. There is only voluntariness
and mutual passion, no deception.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the decision of the Court of First Instance is affirmed.
RULING
The decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, and that of the Court of First Instance is AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SEPARATE OPINION/S
NOTES
Seduction – there must be sufficient promise or inducement. The woman must yield because of the
promise of other inducement. She must be induced to depart form the path of virtue by the use of some
species of arts, persuasion and wiles, which are calculated to have and do have that effect, and which
result in her in ultimately submitting her person to the sexual embraces of her seducer. (Buenaventura
case ruling).
The child’s own rights are not involved here. The SC makes no pronouncement on such.