Wasser vs Velez

8/6/2019 Wasser vs Velez

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wasser-vs-velez 1/3

Wassmer vs Velez, 12 SCRA 648 – Contrary to Good Customs

Facts: W and V set their wedding for Sept 4, 1954. Invitations were distributed to

relatives and friends. Wedding dresses purchased, reception contracted etc. 2 days

before the wedding V left for home in Mindanao and never heard again.

Held: the mere breach of promise of marry is not an actionable wrong, but to

formally set a wedding and go thru rites in preparing and publishing incurring

expenses is palpably and unjustly contrary to good customs for which the defendant

is answerable in damages under Art. 21 NCC.

Tortfeasor or Wrongdoer = Person acting with fault or negligence causing damage

to another is obliged to pay for the damages done (Art 2176 NCC)

Obligations and liabilities arising from human relation

The civil code’s provisions dealing on human relation (Chap 2 Preliminary Title) are

now, not based in the Spanish Civil Code, formulated some basic principles that areto be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the

stability of social order. It was designed to indicate certain norms that spring from

the fountain of good and conscience. (Report, Code Commission, p. 39)

These provisions provide for specie of Special Torts

The catch all provisions

1. Abuse of rights – every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the

performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe

honesty and good faith. (Art 19) The elements are the ff:

i. There must be a legal right or duty

ii. Exercise of such right or duty in bad faith

iii. Prejudices or causes damage to another

2. Sanction – Penalty – every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently

causes damages to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art 20)

This reiterated in Art 2176 and 2194 dealing on quasi delicts holding that person are

liable for damages caused by their fault or negligence. (Prof. Jarencio opined thatthis provision refers to willful or negligent acts contrary to law not constituting quasi

delict or delict)

3. Contra Bonus Mores- any person who willfully causes losses or injury to another

in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall

compensate the latter for damage (Art 21)

Quisimbing vs Icao, 34 SCRA 132

Held: under Art 21, for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his

lust constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim

for compensation for the damage caused. Man’s act is contrary to moral, good

customs or public policy.

Pe et al vs Pe, 5 SCRA 200

Defendant is married – separated and correlative of the plaintiff unmarried woman,

24 years of age. Defendant frequently visited the girl’s house on the pretext of

teaching her how to pray the rosary. They fell in love and had clandestine trust until

they disappeared.

Held: No conclusion can be drawn from the fact that defendant, not only

deliberately, but thru a clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affection and love



to the woman to the extent of having illicit relations with her. The wrong caused to

her and her family is contrary to morals etc as contemplated in Art 21.

Wassmer vs Velez, 12 Scra 648

Facts: W & V applied for a license to contract of marriage. The wedding was set,

invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends. Wedding dresses

purchased (bridal, flower girls maid of honor, etc), reception and other amenities

reserved. But before the wedding, the boy left for Mindanao and never returned.

Held: The mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to

formally set a wedding and go thru all those preparation and expenses and publicity

only to walk out is contrary to good custom for which defendant is held answerable

for damages under Art 21.

B. Unjust enrichment

1. Every Person thru an act or performance by another or any other means,

acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without

just or legal ground shall return the same to him (Art 22).

A community was raised by lawless elements and took personal belongings of the

helpless residents. When the Govt forces came driving the lawless elements and

restoring peace and order, the owner of the house occupied by the lawless element

found several personal belongings of other left by the fleeing outlaws. The person

owning those personal belonging taken by the outlaws have the right to recover

them from the finder under Art 22.

2. Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to

the fault or negligent of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if thru

the act or event he was benefited (Art 23)

Illustration given by the Code Commission

Without A’s knowledge, a flood drive his cattle to the cultivated highland of B. A’s

cattle were saved but B’s crop were destroyed because they were eaten by the

cattle. While A was not at fault however he was benefited when his cattle were

saved from the flood aside from being well fed. It is butt right and equitable that A

should indemnify B for the loss of his crop. Otherwise the injured party B would be

unjustly enriched at the expense of the party who received the benefit.

See Arts 2142 and 2143

C. Violation of dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of neighbors and

other persons (Art 26)

Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his

neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not

constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,

prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence:

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in

life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

D. Dereliction of official duty by public official (Art 27)



Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee

refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an

action for damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any

disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

This provision was designed to redress complaints of the people that in dealing withpublic officials and employees that they are not properly attended to while those

who are rich influential and powerful are given prompt and even servile attention.

Worst is some public officials/ employee took advantage of their position, expectly

or demand bribe for the performance of their duty which lowered the morals of

public service and seriously undermined public confidence of the govt.

Documents

Wasser vs Velez