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.