Baksh v. Court of Appeals (1993): A Broken Promise to Marry
Quick answer
In Baksh v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 97336, 1993), the Supreme Court held that breaking a promise to marry is not, by itself, a legal wrong that gives a right to damages. But when the promise was only a deceit used to win a woman's consent to live with the man, damages may be awarded under Article 21 of the Civil Code, because of the fraud and the injury to her honor, not because of the broken promise.
Gashem Shookat Baksh v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Marilou T. Gonzales
- Citation
- G.R. No. 97336
- Court
- Third Division
- Ponente
- Davide, Jr., J.
What were the facts?
The petitioner was a foreign exchange student taking a medical course in Dagupan City. The private respondent, a woman who worked at a restaurant, said that he courted her and promised to marry her, that she accepted on the condition that they would marry, and that he visited her parents to ask for their approval. Relying on the promise, she lived with him, and they had sexual relations. Her family began to prepare for the wedding "in accordance with Filipino customs and traditions," inviting friends and relatives and arranging sponsors. He then refused to marry her.
She sued him for damages. The trial court found for her and awarded P20,000.00 as moral damages, P3,000.00 as attorney's fees and P2,000.00 as litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed in full. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
What was the legal question?
The Court stated it as "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."
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the award of damages.
The general rule. The Court said: "The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong." It noted that Congress deliberately removed from the draft of the Civil Code the provisions that would have made it one.
When Article 21 applies. Article 21 requires a person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy to compensate the other for the damage. The Court held that where a man's promise to marry is the proximate cause of a woman's acceptance of his love and of her consent to sexual relations, proof that he never intended to marry her and that the promise was only "a subtle scheme or deceptive device" could justify damages under Article 21. The damages are due "not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter." The injury must have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Applied to the case. The lower courts found that his promise to marry was fraudulent and deceptive and that it was the reason she lived with him. The Court agreed and found that he was not moved by good faith from the beginning.
Not equal fault. The petitioner argued that both of them were at fault, so neither could recover. The Court disagreed. It said she acted because of moral seduction, not lust, and left him as soon as she learned he would not marry her. "She is not, therefore, in pari delicto with the petitioner." At most, she was "merely in delicto."
What rule does it set?
A breach of promise to marry is not by itself an actionable wrong, but when the promise was a deceitful device to obtain a woman's consent to sexual relations and caused willful injury to her honor in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, moral damages may be awarded under Article 21 of the Civil Code because of the fraud, not the promise.
Why does this ruling matter?
Baksh explains when a failed engagement can lead to damages. The broken promise alone is not enough. What the law looks at is whether there was fraud or another act contrary to morals, good customs or public policy that caused real injury. The amounts in Baksh were awarded in that case only and are not a fixed rate.
The case is often read with Wassmer v. Velez (1964), which also says a mere breach of promise to marry is not actionable, but allowed damages where the groom walked out of a formally set wedding after public preparations.
Made-up illustration: Leo tells Jen he will marry her after the school year and meets her parents, but he never meant it and leaves once she moves in with him. Under Baksh, the broken promise alone would not give Jen a claim, but proof that the promise was a deceit that injured her honor could support damages under Article 21. A court would decide on the evidence.
Read the full decision on the Supreme Court E-Library (link in the sources below). For a claim for damages, see where to find legal help.
Which provisions does it interpret?
Frequently asked questions
Can you sue someone for breaking a promise to marry in the Philippines?
Not for the broken promise alone. In Baksh v. Court of Appeals (1993), the Supreme Court said a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. Damages may be awarded under Article 21 of the Civil Code only when there is something more, such as fraud and deceit behind the promise that causes injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
What was the ruling in Baksh v. Court of Appeals?
The Court denied the petition and upheld the award of damages to the woman. It agreed with the lower courts that the promise to marry was a deceptive device used to obtain her consent to live with him, and held that damages were due under Article 21 because of the fraud and deceit, not because of the promise itself.
How much were the damages in Baksh?
The trial court awarded P20,000.00 as moral damages, P3,000.00 as attorney's fees and P2,000.00 as litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed in full and the Supreme Court denied the petition. These are the amounts in that case only.
Did the Court apply the pari delicto rule in Baksh?
No. The man argued that both were at fault. The Court said the woman was not in equal fault with him because she acted out of what it called moral seduction, not lust, and that at most she was merely in delicto.
How is Baksh related to Wassmer v. Velez?
Both apply Article 21 to a failed marriage and both say that a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. In Wassmer v. Velez (1964), damages were due because the groom walked out of a formally set wedding after public preparations; in Baksh, because the promise was a deceit.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?