MAY A woman be compelled to return gifts that she received while she was still in a relationship with a man that she promised to marry?
***
The sorry state of our economy has affected many of our personal decisions.
For example, many suspect that the choice of a bride or groom is no longer the exclusive function of attraction and romance. Some see marriage as a way out of poverty.
In some cases, however, a prospective bride realizes certain things and opts out of the wedding ceremony.
While there may have been love at the beginning of a relationship, a revelation of the groom’s secrets can quickly turn affection to hatred.
***
One Filipina narrates that she met a German national upon the introduction of a pastor. The man immediately proceeded to court her, showering her with gifts and constant visits.
The man did not disclose that he was still married to his third wife.
The woman agreed to the man’s proposal to marry her. He promised to give her a better life and even gifted her with half a million pesos as seed money for a conjugal home.
***
The woman broke off the relationship when she learned of the man’s secrets.
The man reacted by filing a civil case against the woman and her parents. In his complaint he said that he suffered sleepless nights after spending money on the woman upon her promise that she would marry him. He wanted reimbursements plus moral damages.
In her defense, the woman claimed that the money she received was a gift and no case may be filed to compel its return.
Is she correct?
***
The woman is correct, according to the Supreme Court. In the Philippines, a breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong.
This means that our courts of law should not entertain cases that are meant to penalize a prospective groom or bride for chickening out of a wedding ceremony.
Our civil laws are largely copied from Spain because of their occupation of our islands. But while actions to collect damages for breach of promise to marry were allowed under the Spanish Civil Code, they were omitted when our own Civil Code was enacted.
This omission means that breach of a promise to marry is no longer allowed as a cause of action in our territory.
***
The Supreme Court therefore sustained the woman’s contention that the half a million pesos given to her was a gift that could no longer be returned.
The claims of the German national cannot be granted unless all the rulings respecting breaches of promise to marry are reversed.
The judicial system is swamped with pending cases. To further add broken romantic promises to the menu of actionable wrongs would be to open the floodgates of litigation to a gale of broken hearts seeking reparation.
***
We close this article with choice words from Justice Marvic Leonen:
The right to marry is a fundamental human right. Marriage is a social institution that creates a permanent bond between individuals, and the law grants them rights and obligations unique to married couples.
The choice of whether to marry — and necessarily, whom to marry — is a personal decision that a person makes for themself. This individual choice must be made, as much as possible, completely free from any external pressures. After all, marriage can and will change a person’s life./PN
