For centuries, a woman’s worth was often tied to narrow and confining notions of virtue, primarily on the fringes of purity and self-preservation. Women who upheld these qualities were treated with shame if they were deceived by men who promised marriage, only to betray them after gaining their trust and virtue. One can’t help but wonder how many women have been “ruined” over a broken promise to marry and how many men who orchestrated such dishonor were left unscathed.
While we have made significant progress in dismantling outdated beliefs about women’s roles, purity and domesticity, the objectification of women persists, even in modern times. Broken promises to marry are prevalent and still occur and often result in emotional and social harm for the woman involved, especially in traditional communities. Families often seek ways to repair the damage caused by such betrayals, leading to the question: Can a woman sue her lover for a broken promise to marry?
Generally, a breach of promise to marry is not considered an actionable wrong. The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently ruled that such promises are not legally binding because they can be subject to abuse by designing women and scrupulous men. Hence, litigation concerning the sorrows caused by a broken heart and a broken promise are often discouraged.
The concept itself in Philippine jurisdiction does not constitute a specific actionable offense, but certain circumstances arising from such situations may give rise to legal claims, particularly if they result in damages.
Article 21 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines states that “any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” Therefore, to be actionable, a breach of promise to marry must be unjustifiably contrary to morals, public policy and good customs. Only then will damages be awarded, provided that the one who seeks for damages acted in good faith.
But how is this illustrated?
In the famous case of Pe vs Pe, it was held that, thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, when a man seduces the woman to the extent of making her fall in love with him by frequenting the house of the woman on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary and, in employing such clever strategy, succeeded in winning the affections and love of the woman to the extent of establishing illicit relations with her, the wrong he has caused the woman and her family is indeed immeasurable, considering the fact that he was a married man.
The Supreme Court decided that, in such a case, the man has committed an injury to the woman’s family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy, as contemplated under Article 21 of the Civil Code.
In another instance, the Supreme Court held in Wassmer vs Velez that to formally set a wedding and go through all the needed preparations and publicity to announce such wedding, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is not a mere breach of promise to marry but one that is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which the defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 of the Civil Code.
The case involved a man and a woman who were lovers and applied for a license to contract marriage and were subsequently issued the same. Their wedding was set, and invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends, and acquaintances. The bride-to-be’s trousseau, party dresses and other apparel for the occasion had been purchased. Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was purchased, bridal showers were given, and gifts were received. Two days before the wedding, however, the man simply left a note for the woman stating that they must postpone the wedding as his mother opposed it, even cautioning her to not ask too many people as to why and to prevent scandal. He assured her that nothing changed, and that he will be returning soon, but he did not appear nor was heard from.
The case of Baksh vs Court of Appeals is another example, perhaps more suited to modern times. In this case, a woman complained of the betrayal of her foreigner boyfriend whom she met when she was 21 and the latter was 29. She was described to be a woman of good moral character who had a reputation duly respected in her community—a barrio lass unaccustomed to the trend of modern urban life and one who would not have allowed herself to be deflowered by a man if there was no persuasive promise made by the latter to marry her. The man in question was then an exchange student taking a medical course who, before August 20, 1987, courted and proposed to marry her. She accepted his love on the condition that they would get married, which was set after the end of the school semester. He even secured her parents’ blessings to the marriage and later forced her to live with him. She was a virgin before she began living with him. Shortly thereafter, his attitude towards her started to change. He maltreated and threatened to kill her, and she sustained injuries as a result. The man then repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore as he was, apparently, already married to someone else.
The Supreme Court emphasized in this case that, where a man’s promise is in fact the proximate cause or the very reason of the acceptance of his love by a woman, and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in sexual congress, proof that he had no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 of the Civil Code. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the award of damages is not because of such a promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation upon the breach of the same.