SC: Please, no filing of lawsuits due to broken hearts, promises

ILOILO City – Even the Supreme Court distances itself from the lovers’ quarrel.

The tribunal, through Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen, discouraged lawsuits stemming from “sorrows caused by a broken heart and a broken promise” when it struck down the plea of a German national, who sued his former Filipina girlfriend for breaking up and refusing to marry him.

The high court thumbed down the move of the German national to claim damages and recover the P500,000 he sent to the Filipina’s family supposedly to buy a lot for their conjugal home.

Justice Leonen, in his decision, said the German’s actions were “tainted with fraud and deceit” and that he did not have the “purest intentions” in marrying a Filipina when lied about his marital status, and even his true name.

“These acts suffice to justify the wedding’s cancellation. Finding out that one’s betrothed is still married to another person, and that they are not who they say they are, are reasons enough to conclude bad faith,” read Leonen’s ruling.

Petitioner Jhonna Guevarra filed the petition asking the high court to reverse the ruling of lower and appellate courts which awarded P500,000 in actual damages to German national Jan Banach.

Guevarra and Banach met through a pastor friend. Banach courted Guevarra until they became a couple. They both agreed to get married and Banach gave Guevarra P500,000 to buy a lot where they were supposed to build their conjugal home.

But Guevarra broke up with Banach after she discovered that he was not yet divorced from his third wife. This prompted Banach to file a damage suit against Guevarra and her parents before the trial court.

Banach claimed moral damages for the alleged “moral suffering, anguish, anxiety, and sleepless nights” he suffered from Guevarra. But Guevarra argued that the money Banach sent her “was a gift, the return of which was not actionable.”

In 2007, the trial court ruled in favor of Banach and awarded moral damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling and ordered Guevarra and her parents to return the P500,000 under the principle of unjust enrichment.

In granting Guevarra’s petition, the tribunal said Banach did not act in good faith, thus, he cannot claim damages under the Civil Code of the Philippines.

The high court also held that Guevarra was correct when she called off the engagement after she had discovered his lies and deception.

“These acts suffice to justify the wedding’s cancellation. Finding out that one’s betrothed is still married to another person, and that they are not who they say they are, are reasons enough to conclude bad faith,” the tribunal said.

“A mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, as long as it is not to such an extent as would palpably and unjustifiably contradict good customs,” it added./