Broken Promises: Can you sue your fiancé for breach of promise to marry?

[caption id="attachment_2494" align="aligncenter" width="403"] Source: www.diaryofsanjeev.blogspot.com[/caption]

Your boyfriend promises to marry you on different conditions: when he finds a stable job, when he saves enough money for the wedding, when he gets 28, or when he's tired of being single. Whatever it is, you patiently wait for that day to come. Then one day he said he changes his mind. He's marrying you no more.

Can you sue your fiancé for his breach of promise to marry?

Of course, yes.

But another question would be, can you compel your fiancé  to pay you for his breach of promise to marry? In legal parlance, is breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong?

In Wassmer v. Velez (G.R. No. L-20089,December 26, 1964), the Supreme Court said, "Indeed, our ruling in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals (L-14628, Sept. 30, 1960), as reiterated in Estopa vs. Biansay (L-14733, Sept. 30, 1960), is that "mere breach of a promise to marry" is not an actionable wrong."

If, however, you are about to make good that promise by sending invitations to your relatives and friends, buying a matrimonial bed, and purchasing the bridal gown, only to disappear two days before your marriage, it's a different story.

That is exactly what happened to the parties in Wassmer v. Velez. It's an unfortunate love story.

Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided to get married and set September 4, 1954 as the big day. Two days before the wedding day, Velez left this note for his bride-to-be:

Dear Bet —

Will have to postpone wedding — My mother opposes it. Am leaving on the Convair today.

Please do not ask too many people about the reason why — That would only create a scandal.

Paquing

A day after, he sent her the following telegram:

NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED RETURNING VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA LOVE .

PAKING

Velez's whereabouts was unknown since then.

Wassmer sued Velez for damages, for which the lower court granted her the relief. As expected, Velez opposed the judgement. The case reached the Supreme Court when several attempts at settling the matter amicably failed.

There's no law whatsoever authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry. That's the contention of Velez in filing a motion for new trial and reconsideration.

The Court, however, said that just because we are not punished for doing something that is not contrary to law doesn't mean that we can do it all the time.

"The extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless," said the Court, "for Article 21 of said Code provides that "any person who willfully 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 the aborted Velez-Wassmer Nuptials, Velez's promise to marry Wassmer was not merely a promise. Had it been so, mere breach of such promise would have not been actionable. Both Velez and Wassmer, however, took concrete actions to realize their wedding plans.

Like any typical would-be couple, Velez and Wassmer undertook the following:

• They applied for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued.


• The wedding was set for September 4, 1954.


• Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances.


• The bride-to-be's trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased.


• Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared.


• A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought.


• Bridal showers were given and gifts received.

The Court viewed the couple's case not as a mere breach of promise to marry. "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," the Court explained, "is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant [Velez] must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid."

It's trite to say that promises are made to be broken. But, as the case of Wassmer and Velez showed, we cannot all the time break our promise with impunity.