Gashem Shookat Baksh Vs CA
Gashem Shookat Baksh Vs CA
Gashem Shookat Baksh Vs CA
GR NO. 97336
FACTS:
ISSUE:
W/N damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Art. 21
RULING: YES.
The existing rule is that a breach of promise is not an actionable wrong per se.
But Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi0delict in this jurisdiction by
granting actual legal remedy for the countless number of moral wrongs that is impossible for the
human foresight to expressly enumerate in a statute.
When a mans promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a
woman, and also the proximate cause of the surrendering the woomans virginity, which in
reality had no intention of marrying her--- could justify an award for damages not because of
breach to marry but because of fraud and deceit behind such promise.
Private respondent surrendered her virginity not because of lust but because of moral seduction
which a ground to recover damages pursuant to Art. 21