Breach of Promise to Marry in Philippine Law

A comprehensive guide to the nature of the wrong, the remedies available, and the leading jurisprudence

1. Concept and Policy Background

Freedom to Marry―but Not to Compel Marriage. Marriage in the Philippines is a personal right that must be entered into freely (Art. 2, Family Code; Art. II §3, 1987 Constitution). Because the State cannot force a person to wed, specific performance is never an available remedy when an engagement is broken.
Civil, not Criminal. The Revised Penal Code once allowed a rapist, seducer or abductor to avoid prosecution by marrying the victim; that “marry-the-offender” escape has been progressively dismantled—most recently by R.A. 11648 (2022). Today no Philippine crime punishes a pure breach of an honest engagement. Liability, if any, is purely civil or arises under special laws (e.g., estafa, VAWC).

Statutory Bases for Civil Liability. Courts anchor relief on several Civil Code provisions:

Civil Code Article	Rationale in Breach Cases
Art. 19 (abuse of rights)	Use of a right (breaking off an engagement) must be in good faith.
Art. 21	Act contra bonos mores causing injury gives rise to damages; the core doctrinal springboard.
Art. 26	Protects dignity and privacy; invoked when humiliation is public.
Art. 2176	Quasi-delict when negligent conduct (e.g., reckless public cancellation) causes damage.
Arts. 2200-2220, 2231-2232	Governing rules on actual, moral, temperate, nominal and exemplary damages.

2. Elements of a Cause of Action

To succeed, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:

A clear, serious promise to marry accepted by the plaintiff (engagement, often proven by writings, testimony, or public acts).
Unjustified repudiation by the defendant. A “valid cause” (already-existing marriage, fraud discovered, serious disease, psychological incapacity, mutual agreement, force majeure) defeats liability.
Resulting injury—monetary loss, mental anguish, wounded feelings, social embarrassment, or damage to reputation.
Causal connection between the breach and the injury.

3. Types of Damages Recoverable

Kind	Illustrative Items	Notes
Actual / Compensatory (Art. 2200)	Reception venue deposits, dress expenditures, invitation printing, ring, down-payments, travel costs.	Must be proven with receipts or credible testimony.
Moral (Art. 2219[10])	Humiliation, sleepless nights, wounded feelings, social scorn.	Awarded almost as a matter of course once liability is shown.
Temperate (Art. 2224)	When some pecuniary loss is certain but amount cannot be proved (e.g., cancelled honeymoon plans).
Exemplary (Art. 2232)	Defendant’s act was “wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent” (e.g., jilting on wedding day, flight abroad).
Nominal (Art. 2221)	Minimal amount to vindicate a right where no substantial loss is shown.

Courts rarely award attorney’s fees unless the defendant’s act or stance is clearly oppressive (Art. 2208).

4. Leading Supreme Court Cases

Case	G.R. / Date	Key Doctrines & Awards
Wassmer v. Velez G.R. L-20089, 26 Dec 1964	Landmark case: jilted bride may recover ₱25k moral + ₱25k exemplary (1964 values) for groom’s disappearance two days before church wedding. Art. 21 squarely applied; no need to show contractual breach—public humiliation suffices.
Hermosisima v. Court of Appeals G.R. 60734, 19 Dec 1984	Engagement broken after defendant impregnated another woman; actual (wedding expenses) + moral damages sustained, but exemplary denied (bad faith not clearly shown).
Alcuaz v. PSALM (discussion obiter) G.R. 181531, 16 June 2015	Re-affirms that specific performance to compel marriage is unconstitutional, leaving damages as exclusive remedy.
People v. Dazo 83 Phil 375 (1949)	Promise to marry plus sexual intercourse may amount to simple seduction (Art. 338, RPC) if the woman was 12-17 yrs and of good reputation. Civil liability for support and acknowledgment distinct from breach-of-promise tort.

(Several CA decisions—e.g., P.D. Sanson v. Rebancos, CA-G.R. CV 1349, 4 Aug 1980—follow Wassmer and are commonly cited for guidance on quantum of awards.)

5. Criminal Overlaps: When the Promise Becomes Deceit

Statute	Scenario
Art. 337 & 338, Revised Penal Code (Qualified / Simple Seduction)	Carnal knowledge of a minor induced by deceit (often, a false promise of marriage); civil indemnity & moral damages may be imposed.
Art. 315 ¶2(a) Estafa	Money or property is obtained through the fraudulent promise of marriage; criminal intent must exist at inception.
R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC)	A fiancée is within “dating relationship”; repudiation coupled with harassment or psychological violence may ground criminal action.

6. Defenses and Mitigating Factors

Valid Legal Impediment discovered only after the engagement (existing marriage, minority, consanguinity).
Mutual Cancellation proved by correspondence or conduct.
Plaintiff’s Fault—contributory acts making continuation of marriage morally impossible (infidelity, concealment of serious illness).
Prescription—Action based on Art. 21 must be filed within four (4) years from the date of breach (Art. 1146, Civil Code).
De minimis Humiliation—where engagement was private, expenses minimal, and no public scandal, only nominal damages may be allowed.

7. Procedure and Evidence

Cause of Action: Independent civil action for damages under Art. 19/21; venue is plaintiff’s residence or where the tort was committed.
Pleadings: Spell out nature of promise, dates, acts of repudiation, itemized expenses, psychic injury; pray for actual, moral, exemplary damages plus costs.
Proof:
- Engagement ring, invitations, receipts for venue, gown, caterer.
- Love letters, e-mails, texts, social-media posts, photographs.
- Witnesses to proposal, announcements, abrupt cancellation.
- Medical or psychological report to bolster moral-damages claim.

Courts treat these cases as torts; pre-trial settlement is encouraged, but where humiliation was public, defendants often prefer to litigate quietly and settle later.

8. Quantum of Damages: Practical Benchmarks (in 2025 pesos)

Circumstance	Typical Range (Actual + Moral)	Trends
Private engagement; modest prep	₱ 100k – ₱ 300k	Courts keep awards moderate where publicity is minimal.
Publicly announced wedding cancelled close to date (à la Wassmer, adjusted)	₱ 500k – ₱ 1 M total	Higher moral & exemplary damages for social humiliation.
Defendant absconds after collecting cash or jewelry	+ Return of property and ₱ 300k – ₱ 700k moral; estafa prosecution possible.
Seduction of minor with broken promise	Civil indemnity fixed by RPC (currently ₱ 75k) + moral ₱ 100k – ₱ 300k, independent of breach suit.

9. Comparative Note: Heart-Balm Actions Abroad

Many U.S. and European jurisdictions have abolished heart-balm suits. The Philippines, however, retained civil redress but channels it through general tort principles—prospectively discouraging frivolous claims while vindicating genuine injury. The doctrine remains vibrant, though courts are cautious, insisting on clear evidence of bad faith and real damage.

10. Practical Tips for Litigants

For the Aggrieved Party

Document everything early: keep receipts, screenshots, and witness affidavits.
File promptly before the 4-year prescriptive period lapses.
Assess publicity risk—a private settlement may better preserve dignity.

For the Defendant

Communicate honestly and as early as possible if doubts arise; delay magnifies liability.
Extend restitution (refunds, apology) to mitigate moral & exemplary damages.
Verify legal capacity to marry before proposing (prevailing marriage, annulment, etc.).

11. Conclusion

A broken engagement is not merely a matter of the heart; in Philippine law it can be a tortious act when done in bad faith or with scandalous indifference. While no court can compel a wedding, it can—and routinely does—award actual, moral, temperate, and exemplary damages to vindicate the injured party’s dignity and reimburse financial loss. Familiarity with Wassmer v. Velez and the cluster of Civil Code provisions (Arts. 19, 21, 26, 2200-2232) remains essential for practitioners navigating this uniquely human, yet legally consequential, dispute.