Not morally liable

This is a case between two lovers whose romantic relationship ended up in a bitter court quarrel. Usually the lovers get carried away by their intense feelings for each other causing them to promise each other even the sun, moon and the stars. Or they may also end up engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage due to the promise to marry the other. If this promise of marriage is broken, can an action be filed by the victim of the broken promise to pay for damages? Can moral damages be recovered because of this breach of promise of marriage? These are the issues discussed and resolved in this case.

This is the case of Jenny who is a 33 years old teacher in a Provincial High School. She has a lot of admirers in her school because she is quite attractive aside from being intelligent. Among those who admire Jenny, is Kay who is ten years younger than Jenny and working as an apprentice pilot in an airline company. The two lovers eventually became engaged as Jenny gave up teaching for a job as an Insurance agent. Deep intimacy developed between the lovers that ended up in a sexual intercourse one evening after watching a movie in a theater. Thereafter, Jenny told Kay that she was pregnant. So Kay promised to marry her. The child was subsequently born in a private maternity clinic and was named Liza. Later on however, Kay fell in love with Krystal, one of the attractive flight attendants of the passenger plane piloted by Kay.

So three months later Jenny filed a complaint against Kay for the support of her child Liza and for moral damages due to the alleged breach of promise made by Kay to marry her. Kay admitted the paternity of Liza but denied ever having promised to marry Jenny. While the case is still being heard, the court ordered Kay to pay alimony pendent lie each month. In due course, the court later on rendered a decision declaring Liza as the natural daughter of Kay and ordered Kay to pay Jenny monthly support for the child, loss of income that Jenny failed to earn during her pregnancy and moral damages and attorney’s fees. This decision was affirmed by the CA which even increased the amount of moral damages under the provision of Article 2219 par 3 of the Civil Code due to the seduction committed by Kay that caused Jenny to yield to his sexual desires.

The Supreme Court however ruled that the award of moral damages made by the RTC and even increased by the CA for breach of promise to marry is not sanctioned by law. According to the SC, the action for breach of promises to marry has no standing in the civil law apart from the right to recover money or property advanced upon the faith of such promise. The SC likewise ruled that the seduction contemplated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code is the crime punished by the Revised Penal Code which does not exist in the present case. Kay cannot be said to be morally guilty of seduction, not only because he is approximately ten years younger than Jenny, who is 36 years of age and as highly enlightened as a former high school teacher and life insurance agent when she became intimate with Kay who is a mere apprentice pilot. She likewise surrendered herself to Kay because of overwhelming love for him but still wanted to bind him by having a fruit of their engagement even before their marriage. So the award of moral damages by the RTC and the CA is indeed untenable (Hermosisima vs. CA et.al G.R. L-14628, Sept. 30, 1960)

* * * attyjosesison@gmail.com

Email: 1. Who built or designed my house?

a. Built by a licensed civil engineer/ architect b. Not by licensed civil engineer/ architect c. Unclear or unknown

2. How old is my house? a. Built in or after 1992 b. Built before 1992 c. Unclear or unknown

3. Has my house been damaged by past earthquake or disaster?

a. NO or YES but repaired b. YES but not yet repaired c. Unclear or unknown

4. What is the shape of my house?

a. Regular symmetrical, rectangular, box-type, simple b. Irregular/complicated c. Unclear or unknown

5. Has my house been extended or expanded?

a. NO or YES but supervised by civil engineer/architect

b. YES, but not supervised by civil engineer/architect c. Unclear or unknown

6. Are the external walls of my house 6 inches thick?

a. YES, it is 6 inches b. NO, thinner than 6 inches c. Unclear or unknown 7. Are steel bars in walls of standard size and spacing?

a. YES (10 mm diameter, tied and spaced correctly) b. NO, fewer and smaller than 10 mm c. None or unknown

8. Are there unsupported walls more than 3 meters wide?

A. NONE, all unsupported walls are less than 3 m wide

b. YES, at least one unsupported wall is more than 3 m wide c. Unclear or unknown

9. What is the gable wall of my house made of?

a. Light materials, properly anchored CHBs, no gable wall

b. Improperly anchored CHBs, bricks, stone c. Unclear or unknown

10. What is the foundation of my house? a. Reinforced concrete b. Stones or unreinforced concrete c. Unclear or unknown

11. What is the soil condition under my house? a. Hard (rock or stiff soil) b. Soft (muddy or reclaimed) c. Unclear or unknown

12. What is the overall condition of my house? a. Good condition b. Poor condition c. Unclear or unknown Give yourself 1 point for every Letter A, 0 for B or C. Add them up: compacted with mortar using correct mix of 1 part cement to 4 parts (1:4) washed river sand.

• It is assumed that building standards were observed if authorized people took charge of construction.

• This test rates the chance that your house was built compliant to the recent earthquake-resistance standards similar to seismic detailing introduced in 1992.

• If damaged by previous earthquakes or disasters but unrepaired, the structure is weakened, so vulnerable to partial or total collapse during strong ground shaking.

• Shape of the house influences its behavior during strong ground shaking. Box-type or rectangular houses behave better than irregular or asymmetrical.

• It is assumed that supervised expansion or extension leads to safer, stronger structures.

• Use of standard 6” CHB for external walls produces more stable, stronger structures. This was shown in the Full-Scale Shaking Table Test conducted for two models of CHB houses in Tsukuba, Japan, Feb. 2012. Avoid using sand and gravel taken from shorelines and beaches as materials for CHB, mortar, plaster, and concrete mix for foundation -- since those are known to corrode the steel bars over time, resulting to thinner diameter and loss of bond.

• Steel bars embedded in CHB walls, concrete columns, floors, and foundation resist impact of ground shaking. Use of standard 10 mm diameter steel bars, spaced at 40 cm side to side and tied to steel bars laid every 3 layers of CHB, prevents wall collapse during earthquake.

• Walls wider than 3-meter span without any perpendicular wall or support can collapse in strong ground shaking.

• The shaking table test exhibited that the unanchored gable part of the wall shows larger horizontal movement during strong ground shaking. Reinforced and anchored CHBs or light materials should be used for gable wall.

• Reinforced concrete wall foundations resist shaking, slipping, and tilting better than stone foundations.

• Rock or stiff-soil provides better support. Soft soil usually amplifies strong ground shaking and tends to spread and subside the ground, which may worsen structure damage. For houses on slopes, tie beams or continuous wall foundations prevent uneven settlement during strong ground shaking.

• Observe over time the state of our house. Regular maintenance must be done to prevent deterioration like sagging roof, chipped plasters, and wall cracks.

* * * Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).

Gotcha archives: www.philstar.com/columns/134276/gotcha