FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA vs. THE HON.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960

FACTS:
Complainant Soledad Cagigas (Soledad) was then a teacher who became a life insurance
underwriter in Cebu, and Francisco Hermosisima (hereafter known as petitioner) was ten (10) years
younger than Soledad. Both used to go around together and were regarded as engaged, although
petitioner had made no promise of marriage prior thereto.
One evening in 1953, after coming from the movies, they had sexual intercourse in petitioner’s
cabin on board M/V “Escaño” to which he was then attached as an apprentice pilot. On June 17,
1954, in a private maternity and clinic, their child, Chris Hermosisima was born. Petitioner then
promised to marry Soledad. However, subsequently, on July 24, 1945, petitioner married one
Romanita Perez. Thus, on October 4, 1954, Soledad filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu a
complaint for acknowledgement of her child, Chris Hermosisima, as natural child of petitioner as well
as support of said child and payment for moral damages for alleged breach of promise. Petitioner
admitted the paternity of the child and expressed willingness to support Soledad.
On October 27, 1954, the court ordered petitioner to pay, by way of alimony pedente lite,
P50.00 a month which was reduced to P30.00 a month on February 16, 1955; pay Soledad the sum
of P4,500.00 for actual and compensatory damages; the sum of P5,000.00 as moral damages; and
further sum of P500.00 as attorney’s fee.
On appeal taken by petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. However, as to the
actual and compensatory damages and the moral damages, the amount to be paid was increased to
P5,614.25 and P7,000.00 respectively. The Court of Appeals further ruled that petitioner is guilty of
seduction in relation to the injury caused by the breach of promise to marry.

ISSUE:
Whether or not moral damages are recoverable under our laws for breach of promise to marry.

HELD:
Yes. Moral damages can be recovered. However, breach of promise to marry does not
constitute any liability.
It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of De Jesus vs. Sequia that breach of promise to
marry is not actionable apart from the right to recover money or property advanced upon the faith of
such promise. Furthermore, it was sustained by the Supreme Court that petitioner should be liable for
moral damages. On a different note, the court cannot prove that petitioner is liable for seduction. The
court is not convinced that the petitioner committed seduction on account of the existing facts that
Soledad was ten (10) years older and was a former teacher who latter became a life insurance
underwriter. Hence, she is capable of discernment which signifies that Soledad freely and willfully
committed herself to the petitioner.