WASSMER VS VELEZ
FACTS:
Velez and Wassmer were about to get married when two days before
the wedding day Velez postponed the wedding and did not appear nor
was he heard from again.
P sued R for damages, Velez filed no answer and was declared in
default. Judgement was rendered against Velez.
On 1955, Velez filed a petition for relief from orders,
judgement and proceedings and motion for new trial and
reconsideration. It was then opposed by Wassmer. - Denied
TC ordered the parties to appear to explore the stage of
proceedings for an amicable settlement.
Velez again failed to appear before the court and filed a motion
to defer for two weeks which was granted but still he failed to
appear.
Another chance for an amicable settlement was given by the court
but Velez informed the court that chances of settling the case
amicably were nil.
On appeal to SC Velez alleged that court a quo excusable
negligence as ground to set aside the judgement by default when it
stated that he filed no answer in the belief that at amicable
settlement is being negotiated.
ISSUE: Whether or not in the case at bar, is a case of mere
breach of promise to marry.
HELD: Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to
marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all
the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of
it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite
different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good
customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in
accordance with Article 21 aforesaid. The lower courts judgment is
hereby affirmed.
No it is not actionable for there is no provision in the Civil
Code but the case is not a mere breach of promise to marry.
Francisco must still be punished for the damages in accordance with
Article 21 of the Civil Code.
