FACTS:
Apolonio Tanjanco courted the plaintiff Araceli Santos BOTH BEING OF ADULT AGE: that the defendant expressed and professed his undying love and affection for plaintiff who also in due time reciprocated the tender feelings: that in consideration of the defendant’s PROMISE OF MARRIAGE plaintiff consented and acceded to defendant’s pleas for carnal knowledge(sexual intercourse) which later Araceli Santos conceived a child. Apolonio REFUSED TO MARRY Araceli as promised and refrained from seeing the plaintiff which led to her suffering from mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feeling, moral shock and social humiliation. The plaintiff asked that the defendant recognize the child she was bearing; to pay her not less than P430 a month for her support plus P100,000 in moral and exemplary damages plus 10,000 attorney’s fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a breach of promise of marriage can bring any action for damages in court. Whether or not seduction has been an element in the relationship between Apolonio and Arceli
RULING: NO case can be made since the plaintiff Araceli was a woman of adult age, maintained intimate sexual relations with appellant with repeated acts of intercourse. Such is not compatible to the idea of seduction. Plainly, there is voluntariness and mutual passion: for had the appellant been deceived she would not have again yielded to his embraces much less for one year without exacting fulfillment of the alleged promises of marriage and she would have cut all relationship upon finding that defendant did not intend to fulfill his promises. One cannot be held liable for a breach of promise to marry. Digest by: Venus Beta-chi Badilla
Lanuza Pictures by Kage
