Wassmer vs.

Velez  On August 23, 1954 plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to
| Dec. 6, 1964 | J. Bengzon
Digest maker: Dungo
SUMMARY: Wassmer and Velez were supposed to get married but 2 days
before the marriage, Velez cancelled it through letter. They had already
gone through all the preparations such as sending out the invitations,
buying beds and accessories, etc. Wassmer sued for damages.
DOCTRINE: A mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable
wrong. However, 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 from a mere
breach of promise to marry. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to
good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages
in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.
contract marriage, which was subsequently issued. Their wedding was
set for September 4, 1954. 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. A
matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were
given and gifts received.
 With just two days before the wedding, defendant simply wrote her a
letter and went to Mindanao where he wire her the telegram and never
contacted her again.
● 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 from a mere breach of
promise to marry. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good
customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in
accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.

FACTS: PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the above-indicated modification, the lower

court's judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs.
● Velez and Wassmer were supposed to get married on September 4,
1954. 2 days prior, however, Velez wrote Wassmer a letter saying he
has to postpone the wedding as his mother opposes it.
● The next day, he sent her a telegram telling her nothing had changed.
However, he was not heard of again after.
● Wassmer sued him for damages.
● Velez filed a "petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings
and motion for new trial and reconsideration.” He was declared in
default.
● He filed a motion for new trial and reconsideration

Issue: WON an action for breach of promise to marry could prosper? – YES

 A “mere breach of a promise to marry” is not an actionable, wrong as

Congress deliberately eliminated if from the draft of the New Civil
Code. However, the circumstances in the instant case is not a “mere
breach of a promise to marry.”
● Article 21 provides that "any person who wilfully 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."