GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner vs. HON.

COURT AUTHOR:
OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents. NOTES: (if applicable)
[GR No. 97336; February 19, 1993]
TOPIC:
PONENTE:DAVIDE, JR., J.

FACTS:
1. In August 1986, while working as a waitress in Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Marilou Gonzales, then 21 years old, met
GashemShookatBaksh, a 29 year old exchange student from Iran who was studying medicine in Dagupan. The two got really
close and intimate. On Marilou’s account, she said that Gashem later offered to marry her at the end of the semester. Marilou then
introduced Gashem to her parents where they expressed their intention to get married. Marilou’s parents then started inviting
sponsors and relatives to the wedding. They even started looking for animals to slaughter for the occasion.
2. Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment where they had sexual intercourse. But in no time, their
relationship went sour as Gashem began maltreating Marilou. Gashem eventually revoked his promise of marrying Marilou and
he told her that he is already married to someone in Bacolod City. So Marilou went home and later sued Gashem for damages.
3. The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the trial court.
4. On appeal, Gashem averred that he never proposed marriage to Marilou and that he cannot be adjudged to have violated Filipino
customs and traditions since he, being an Iranian, was not familiar with Filipino customs and traditions.

ISSUE(S):Whether breach of promise to marry can give rise to cause for damages.

HELD:No. Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit and fraud employed by Gashem
that constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Civil Codewhich warrants the award of damages.
RATIO:
 Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit and fraud employed by Gashem that
constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code which 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.”
 His promise of marrying Marilou was a deceitful scheme to lure her into sexual congress. As found by the trial court, Marilou was
not a woman of loose morals. She was a virgin before she met Gashem. She would not have surrendered herself to Gashem had
Gashem not promised to marry her. Gashem’s blatant disregard of Filipino traditions on marriage and on the reputation of
Filipinas is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy. As a foreigner who is enjoying the hospitality of our country and
even taking advantage of the opportunity to study here he is expected to respect our traditions. Any act contrary will render him
liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code.
 The Supreme Court also elucidated that Article 21 was meant to expand the concepts of torts and quasi delict. It is meant to cover
situations such as this case where the breach complained of is not strictly covered by existing laws. It was meant as a legal remedy
for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute
books – such as the absence of a law penalizing a the breach of promise to marry.
 The Supreme Court however agreed with legal luminaries that if the promise to marry was made and there was carnal knowledge
because of it, then moral damages may be recovered (presence of moral or criminal seduction), Except if there was mutual lust; or
if expenses were made because of the promise (expenses for the wedding), then actual damages may be recovered.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):