Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960
ERLINDA ESTOPA, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LORETA PIANSAY, JR., defendant-appellant.
Excelso V. Araneta for appellant.
Arcadio C. Sevilla for appellee.
BENGZON, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Negros Occidental court of first instance awarding to plaintiff the sum of P5,000.00 by way of moral damages, P2,000.00 as exemplary damages and P1,000.00 as attorney's fees.
As stated by the court below, "this is an action for recovery of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. There is no dispute regarding the facts of this case. The plaintiff Erlinda Estopa, a beautiful girl of twenty-three, residing in Bago, Negros Occidental, with her widowed mother, Felicidad Estopa, stated that she fell in love and submitted herself completely to the defendant Loreta Piansay, Jr., sometime in September, 1957, after a courtship that lasted for a couple of months during which period the defendant consistently promised and succeeded to make her believe in him that he was going to marry her; that sometime in December, 1957, the plaintiff was informed reliably that defendant was backing out from his promise of marriage so she demanded defendant's compliance to his promise in order to vindicate her honor, and plaintiff went to the extent of asking the help of defendant's parents, but all her efforts were in vain. Finally, realizing that her efforts were futile but knowing that her cause was not completely lost, she decided to file her complaint, not to compel defendant to marry her, but to demand from him a compensation for the damages that she sustained."
There is no claim for any other kind of damages. In fact, Erlinda Estopa filed no brief here. And her complaint merely alleged "social humiliation, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feeling and moral shock."1awphîl.nèt
We have today decided that in this jurisdiction, under the New Civil Code, the mere breach of a promise to marry is not actionable. (Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals, Supra, 631); and we have reversed the Cebu court's award for moral damages in breach of promise suit. Consistently with such ruling, Loreta Piansay, Jr. may not be condemned to pay moral damages, in this case.
Now, as plaintiff has no right to moral damages, she may not demand exemplary damages. (She lays no claim to temperate or compensatory damages.)
While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. (Art. 2234, New Civil Code) (Emphasis supplied.)
Therefore, as plaintiff is not entitled to any damages at all, there is no reason to require Piansay, Jr. to satisfy attorney's fees.
Judgment reversed, defendant absolved from all liability. No costs.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David and Paredes, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
