Baksh v CA

G.R. No. 97336

February 19, 1993

Facts

Marilou Gonzales is 22 years old, single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral character and
reputation duly respected in her community. Petitioner, on the other hand, is an Iranian citizen residing
at the Lozano Apartments, Dagupan City, and is an exchange student taking a medical course. Before
August 1987, the latter courted and proposed to marry Marilou. She accepted him only if they get married.
Both agreed so after the end of the school semester (October). Sometime in 20 August 1987, the
petitioner forced her to live with him in the Lozano Apartments. She was a virgin before she began living
with him. A week before the filing of the complaint, petitioner's attitude towards her started to change,
by maltreating and threatening to kill her. during a confrontation with a representative of the barangay
captain of Guilig a day before the filing of the complaint, petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement
and asked her not to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already married to someone living in
Bacolod City. Private respondent then prayed for judgment ordering the petitioner to pay her damages in
the amount of not less than P45,000.00, reimbursement for actual expenses amounting to P600.00,
attorney's fees and costs, and granting her such other relief and remedies as may be just and equitable.

On October 16, 1989, the lower court applied Article 21 of the New Civil Code in its decision favoring
Marilou Gonzales and ordered Gashem Baksh to pay PhP 20,000 moral damges, PhP 3,000.00 in attorney’s
fees and PhP 2,000.00 for the litigation expenses.

Hence, Baksh filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking for the review of the decision of the Regional
Trial Court in Pangasinan and to set aside the said decision which was also affirmed in toto by the Court
of Appeals.

Issue

Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21
of the Civil Code of the Philippines

Ruling

The Court held that the breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However,
the Court rules that no foreigner should make a mockery of our laws. It was evident from the facts
presented to the Court that Gashem Baksh had not intention to marry Marilou Gonzales on the account
of her “ignoble birth, inferior educational background, poverty and, as perceived by him, dishonorable
employment.”

In the case presented, Gashem Baksh was not motivated by good faith and honest motive when
he proposed his love and promised to marry Marilou Gonzales. He was merely motivated by lust and
“clearly violated the Filipino’s concept of morality and brazenly defied the traditional respect Filipinos
have for their women.”
 The Court affirmed the Decisions of the lower court and the Court of Appeals pursuant to Aticle
21 of the New Civil Code, not because of the breach of promise to marry, but due the fraud and deceit
employed by herein petitioner that wilfully caused injury to the honor and reputation of the herein
private respondent, which committed contrary to the morals, good customs or public policy.