CONRADO BUNAG, JR vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS, First Division, and ZENAIDA B.

CIRILO
G.R. No. 101749 July 10, 1992

FACTS:

Conrado Bunag Jr, the Defendant, appealled for the reversal of the decision made by the Hon Court of
Appeals on the complaint for damages filed against him by Zenaila B Cirilo, the Plaintiff, for alleged breach
of promise to marry the Plaintiff after she was forcibly abducted and raped by the Defendant. The Regional
Trial Court rendered a decision which was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals that the Defendant had
to pay the Plaintiff for damages as well as the costs of suit.

Plaintiff contends that she obliged to the invite of the Defendant for a merienda in a nearby restaurant as
she belived in Defendant’s sincerity that the later wanted to talk with her over matters between their
relationship. However, Defendant forcibly brought her to a motel instead where she was raped by him. After
which, Defendant did not consent the Plaintiff to go home and stated that he would only let her go after they
were married as he intended to marry her, so that Plaintiff promised not to make any scandal and to marry
him. Defendant and plaintiff filed their respective applications for a marriage license with the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Bacoor, Cavite. Even so, the defendant later left the paintiff, never returned and
even filed an affidavit withdrawing his application for a marriage license. The plaintiff was compelled to go
back to her parents very ashamed and could not sleep and eat because of the deception done against her
by the defendant.

Defendant claimed that he and the plaintiff had earlier made plans to elope and get married, and this fact
was known to their friends. On that afternoon, He and the plaintiff made good their plans to elope; they
checked in of the hotel and after three hours they proceeded to his grandmother’s house where they stayed
for twenty one (21) days. Defendant added that bitter disagreements with the plaintiff over money and the
threats made to his life prompted him to break off their plan to get married.

Based on the evidence on record, defendant brought the plaintiff to a motel or hotel where they had sexual
intercourse. Later that evening, Defendant brought the Plaintiff to the house of his grandmother where they
cohabited for 21 days. Defendant and Plaintiff filed their respective applications for a marriage license with
the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Bacoor, Cavite. However, Defendant later left the Plaintiff and filed
an affidavit withdrawing his application for a marriage license.

Issue:

Whether or not a breach of promise to marry is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy that could
warrant the awards of damages?.

Held:

Supreme Court ruled that while a breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable, except where the
plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof, the award of
moral damages is allowed in cases specified in or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil
Code. Correlative to Section 10 of Art 2219 of the Civil Code, Article 21 of Civil Code stated 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 moral damages. The Supreme Court added that the acts of petitioner
in forcibly abducting private respondent and having carnal knowledge with her against her will, and
thereafter promising to marry her in order to escape criminal liability, only to thereafter renege on such
promise after cohabiting with her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constitute acts contrary to morals and
good customs. These are grossly insensate and reprehensible transgressions which indisputably warrant
and abundantly justify the award of moral and exemplary damages. The Supreme Court further ruled that
the dismissal of the complaint for forcible abduction with rape was by mere resolution of the fiscal at the
preliminary investigation stage. There is no declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil
case might arise did not exist. Consequently, the dismissal did not in any way affect the right of herein
private respondent to institute a civil action arising from the offense because such preliminary dismissal of
the penal action did not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. The Supreme Court stressed that it is
not now necessary that a criminal prosecution for rape be first instituted and prosecuted to final judgment
before a civil action based on said offense in favor of the offended woman can likewise be instituted and
prosecuted to final judgment.

For the above stated reasons, defendant should pay plaintiff for the moral, exemplary and temperate
damages as well as for the Attorney’s fee and costs of suit.