When love turns to lawsuit
The Supreme Court ruled against Banach and reiterated the doctrine that a mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong
It is a well-established principle that breaching a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. This principle is based on the recognition that marriage is a personal decision. Individuals have the freedom to choose their spouse or to forgo marriage entirely.
But let us say your partner gave you money to buy a lot for the marital home. However, you called off the wedding because you discovered your partner had lied about his/ her marital status. Do you have to give the money back? The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
In Guevarra et al. v. Banach, G.R. 214016 (2021), Banach, a German citizen, met Guevarra and their relationship blossomed into romance. Ultimately, they planned to marry. To prepare for their future life together, Banach gave Guevarra P500,000 to purchase land for their marital home.
But Guevarra then discovered Banach’s lies and deceptions, which led to their breakup. Consequently, Banach filed a case against Guevarra, seeking compensation for damages and the return of the P500,000 he had given her. He cited the principle of unjust enrichment to support his claim.
As the money was a gift, Guevarra could not be compelled to return it.
The Supreme Court ruled against Banach and reiterated the doctrine that a mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong as long as it is not to such extent as would palpably and unjustifiably contradict good customs. In this case, Guevarra was justified in calling off the wedding as Banach had lied about his marital status and even hid his true name.
Further, the Supreme Court held that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case since Guevarra had acted in good faith. The P500,000 was given as a gift to help her and her family stave off their possible eviction from their home. As the money was a gift, Guevarra could not be compelled to return it.
The above-cited ruling did not depart from the doctrine in Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089 (1964), wherein the Supreme Court allowed recovery of damages due to a canceled marriage. In the said case, extensive wedding preparations had already been made, such as securing a marriage license, printing and distributing wedding invitations, purchasing dresses for the bride and the wedding entourage, etc.
The award was not based on the breach of promise to marry but on Article 21 of the New Civil Code. While a simple broken promise is not actionable, the Supreme Court deemed walking out on a wedding two days before, after everything had been prepared, to be unjust and contrary to good customs.
The breach of a promise to marry to be an actionable wrong depends on the specific circumstances of each case. However, it is essential to consider things carefully before committing to marriage to avoid turning love into a lawsuit.