Wassmer v. Velez (1964): The Groom Who Did Not Come

Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer decided to marry and set the wedding for September 4, 1954. They obtained a marriage license. Invitations were printed and distributed, the bride's trousseau and dresses were bought, a matrimonial bed was bought, and bridal showers were held.

Two days before the wedding, the groom left a note saying the wedding would have to be postponed because his mother opposed it, and that he was leaving that day. The next day he sent a telegram: "NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED RETURNING VERY SOON". After that, he did not appear and was not heard from again.

The bride sued for damages. The groom filed no answer and was declared in default. The trial court ordered him to pay P2,000.00 as actual damages, an award of moral and exemplary damages, and P2,500.00 as attorney's fees. His petition for relief from the judgment was denied, and he appealed.

Can a person be held liable for damages for failing to go through with a wedding, when a breach of promise to marry is not by itself an actionable wrong?

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, with a reduction of the moral and exemplary damages.

Not a mere breach of promise. The Court recalled its earlier rulings that a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But it pointed to Article 21, under which any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy must compensate the other for the damage. It said: "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."

Moral and exemplary damages. The Court said that under Article 2219(10) of the Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21. It also allowed exemplary damages because the groom acted in a "wanton... reckless [and] oppressive manner." Considering the circumstances, it reduced the moral and exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P15,000.00. The award of actual damages was not questioned.

No facts in his defense. The groom's affidavit said only that his failure to marry was due to a "fortuitous event and/or circumstances beyond his control." The Court said an affidavit like this states a conclusion, not facts, so it could not support his petition for relief. In a resolution of February 26, 1965, the Court denied his motion for reconsideration on the same ground.

A mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, but formally setting a wedding, making the preparations public and then walking out of it when the marriage is about to be solemnized is contrary to good customs and gives rise to moral and exemplary damages under Articles 21 and 2219(10) of the Civil Code.

Wassmer is the classic case on a called-off wedding. It shows that the law does not punish a change of heart as such, but the way a person breaks off an engagement can create liability when it causes injury in a manner contrary to good customs. The amounts in Wassmer were set in 1955 and 1964 for that case only.

The case is often read with Baksh v. Court of Appeals (1993), which applied Article 21 where the promise to marry was a deceit used to win the woman's consent to live with the man.

Made-up illustration: Ana and Jun book the church, print invitations and hold a bridal shower. Two days before the wedding, Jun leaves without a word and never returns. Following Wassmer, Ana may have a claim for damages under Article 21; a court would decide on the evidence and fix any amount.

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.