Topic: Elements

Gashem Shookat Baksh v CA

G.R. No. 97336, 19 February 1993

Facts:
 Gashem Shookat Baksh, Iranian citizen, and a medical student, courted and proposed to marry private
respondent Marilou Gonzales, 22 years old, Filipina, waitress, and a woman of good moral character.
Gonzales accepted Baksh’s love and proposal of marriage, a result of which Baksh together with
Marilou visited Marilou’s parents in Bugallon, Pangasinan to secure their approval to marriage to which
her parents agreed to.

 After securing Marilou’s parent’s approval, Marilou, then a virgin, started living with Baksh in his
apartment and was allegedly maltreated by Baksh. During a confrontation with a representative of the
barangay captain of Guilig, Baksh repudiated their marriage agreement and asked Marilou to not live
with him anymore. It was later found that Baksh also had a common law wife in Bacolod. Hence,
Marilou filed a suit for damages.

 RTC decided in favor of Marilou applying Art 21 of the Civil Code while the CA affirmed in toto the ruling
of the trial court, hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the mere breach of promise to marry per se is an actionable wrong.

Held: No, petition denied.

Ruling:
 As a general rule, a breach of a promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However, under
Art 21 which was designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in order to grant adequate
legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible to foresee and specifically
enumerate and punish in the statute books.

 Art 2176 defines a quasi-delict as an act or omission that causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
exisitng contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.

 Thus, a quasi-delict is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or
intent. Quasi-delict otherwise known as culpa aquiliana is a civil law concept while torts is much
broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as
well as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. In the Philippine legal system, intentional
and malicious acts, with certain exceptions are to governed by the RPC while negligent acts or
omissions are covered by Art 2176 of the Civil Code. In between these opposite spectrums are
injurious acts covered by Art 21, which together with Art 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, has greatly
broadened the scope of the law on wrongs.

 Thus, the SC upheld that where a man’s promise to marry is the proximate cause of the acceptance of
his lover by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise becomes the proximate cause of the
giving of herself unto him in sexual union, while the man had no intention of marrying her, could justify
the award of damages pursuant to art 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the
fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It
is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy, as was found in the case. Thus petition is denied.