Browse > Home / Sai/Mami/Fiscal Eldred Cole / wHO pAYS tHE pRICE wHEN tHE wEDDING iS oFF?

wHO pAYS tHE pRICE wHEN tHE wEDDING iS oFF?

October 29, 2008

Last time I wrote about who gets the ring when the wedding is off, this time I would like to yak about who pays the price when the wedding does not push through. Hey, I was never jilted, neither was I given a ring, although if I was, I would have pawned it and bought something more to my liking, like a case of beer with lots of pulutan, and a night out in town with friends. And if it was really an expensive ring, would have traded it for the latest cell phone or a digital camera.
In the Philippines, a mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. This has been decided by the Supreme Court in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals (L-14628, Sept. 30, 1960), as reiterated in Estopa vs. Biansay (L-14733, Sept. 30, 1960), and again in Wassmer vs. Velez, (G.R. No. L-20089      Dec. 26, 1964). The Court, in all those cases, pointed out that Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the new Civil Code the provisions that would have it so. Hhmmnn and we know what gender of the writers of the draft was then.
So, it has become a rule of law that a breach of promise to marry is not considered a contract which would ripen to an actionable wrong that would entitle the ditched party to go to court and file a case for redress of a grievance. Such jilting, if we can say that point blank, would only evolve into full blown adversarial case in court if actual damages have occurred.
The esteemed Court says in Wassmer case, x x x “but to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 of the new Civil Code. To those who do not know, Article 21 of the new Civil Code provides: “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.” So, there.
But hey, on March 27, 2004, Republic Act 9262 took effect. This law is commonly known as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children, Act. The law defines “Violence against women and their children” to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, x x x , which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse x x x. “Dating relationship” under the law refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. The law further provides that:  “Sexual relations” refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.
The same law defines “Psychological violence” to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity. x x x
Applying therefore the provisions of RA 9262, it is apparent that when a woman is dumped or discarded even before the actual wedding has been set but there was already a public knowledge of the impending nuptials, or there was a breach of a promise to marry and the couple has a common child, and that betrayal caused her mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation, then it is safe to conclude that such action amounts to psychological violence which is punishable under Sec. 5 (i) of RA 9262 which violation carries with it the penalty of prision mayor. Sec. 6 of the same law further provides: If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant x x x, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in this section. In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court.
Geez, don’t shoot the messenger. I am just here to present a discussion regarding the new law. I know, men all over the city would screech in chorus that the law is unfair. In fact, since it took effect almost two years ago, the law has met a lot of flack from the male sector. But hey, dura lex, sed lex, the law maybe hard, but it is the law. Besides, this is just my own exposition; it has not been put on trial, yet.
Don’t worry boys, for as long as the justice system in the Philippines is still predominantly ruled by men, actions arising from this treatise would wait an era to come into fruition. Wanna bet? Besides, if you have no proclivity to walk out on someone you profess to love, you have nothing to fear. This law is also for the fathers of daughters out there. (For comments and/or violent reactions e-mail me at coi_416@hotmail.com).

Written by admin · Filed Under Sai/Mami/Fiscal Eldred Cole 

Comments

Got something to say?





Philippine Elections 2010

LIST OF CANDIDATES

Click this link to see all lists of candidates for the entire Philippines