The groom arrived at the church thirty minutes late, somber and teary eyed. His mother had to rush out to help him wear his barong tagalog. This must have piqued the priest so much that he started the ceremony railing at the vexatious delay. But the bride was very radiant in her wedding gown, and a smile exposing genuine exuberance as she walked down the aisle. Earlier, she had gone through such tedious preparation, waking up early, doing last minute instructions, make-up, and getting dressed. Everything’s set and everything’s done: from getting the marriage license, the wedding entourage, invitations, photographer, video, bridal car, booking a restaurant, hotel, and all other wedding essentials. This moment had got to be the joyous culmination.
While the wedding ceremony was progressing, the groom was fidgety and kept peeking at his cellphone. The time came for the exchange of vows, the highlight of this age-old ritual—the proclamation of their lifetime commitment to each other. The priest proceeded to ask the groom, in customary phrasing, if he will take the bride to be his wife. Just right before the groom could answer; a loud cry reverberated across the church hall: “No, stop the wedding!”, and the groom’s name being called twice. This came from a woman who just went in.
The groom turned, and with no hint of reluctance, went straight to the woman and embraced her. They darted out of the church, leaving everybody stunned, and the bride, shocked and horrified.
You might swear I could have lifted it straight out from a Tagalog movie, or that I might have imagined scenes from Hollywood movies like “The Graduate”, or “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, but no. The above account might contain some attempts at creative but very minute embellishments, but it is based on actual news story.
The front page story in the local newspapers yesterday just did not escape my attention. Ms. Lilibeth Gaviola, the bride in the story, has just filed a civil action for half a million in damages against Ryan Sesante, the runaway groom. The failed wedding ceremony allegedly happened just before Christmas last year, on December 22, 2007, right here in
Now, if someone promises or agrees to marry his or her lover, and at the last minute backs out on the promise, will it constitute as an actionable wrong? The answer is no. But one can sue for recovery of actual damages, like wedding expenses.
The act of marrying is a personal obligation, therefore legally; a demand for specific performance is simply out of the question—being tantamount to involuntary servitude. Our laws do not provide specific reliefs for cases arising purely from a breach of one’s promise to marry another. Although, there was supposed to be a chapter on breach of promise to marry proposed by the Code Commission but it was deleted by Congress in enacting the Civil Code apparently because of lessons from other countries, that the action readily lends itself to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men (Congressional Record, vol. IV, No. 79, 14 May 1949, 2352).
However, the Court has allowed moral or exemplary damages not so much on the breach of promise but of the fraud or deceit and the consequent pain and humiliation suffered. This is pursuant to Article 21 of the New Civil Code which provides that “any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
In Baksh vs. CA (219 SCRA 115), it was held -
“[T]hat where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 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. It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.”
I know of a somewhat similar story. The difference was that, during the wedding day, the groom didn’t show up in the church… hence, it turned out that no marriage happened and when they tried looking for the groom at his domicile, they found out that he already ran away.
I have a question, Is there a prescription period in filing for damages in relation to article 21 of the New Civil Code? ‘Coz if I’m not mistaken, the lady didn’t file any case against the guy.
Posted by orville at May 27, 2008, 11:56 pmIn my humble opinion, the prescriptive period is 4 years.
Posted by ricky at July 18, 2008, 5:22 pmAll comments are moderated. Your comments will not appear here unless approved by the blog owner. Thank you.
When I read the title, i thought you were going to talk about FG Mike Arroyo who has gone to Hong Kong for health reasons, in the midst of the controversy in the Philippines. I just hope he gets well soon so he can face the people who are accusing him of being involved in the NBN-ZTE scandal. We also need to hear his side of the story, that’s if he’s willing to share it with the public.
Posted by Lester Cavestany at February 25, 2008, 8:22 pm