Have you ever experienced heartbreak from a wedding that never happened? Did they promise to marry only to have it fall through? Have a sudden change of heart? You may have a case of a breach of promise to marry!
A breach of promise to marry happens when a person backs out of their ‘promise’, ‘agreement’, or ‘contract’ to marry another person, which, in other jurisdictions and especially in the past, is an actionable legal wrong and allows the jilted party to sue for damages.
Though in the Philippines, it is important to note that the Civil Code offers no provision as to the legal ramifications of a mere breach of promise to marry. Per Article 2 of The Family Code of the Philippines, the State recognizes marriage as a contract that must be entered into and consented to freely by both parties. Citizens have the freedom to marry whoever and whenever in the exercise of their right to liberty, and so, when there is a mere breach of promise to marry, there is no actionable wrong because entering into marriage is a voluntary and non-compulsory act. Marriage cannot be imposed, and thus, there is no legal basis for legal action.
“A mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, as long as it is not of such extent as would palpably and unjustifiably contradict good customs,” reiterated the Supreme Court in Guevarra et. al. v. Banach in 2021. “Litigation to the sorrows caused by a broken heart and a broken promise must be discouraged.”
However, it is important to note that a breach of promise to marry can give rise to civil liabilities. But how?
Basis of Legal Actions against a Breach of Promise to Marry
Legal sanctions against breach of promise to marry are anchored on the following provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines:
- Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
- One must have acted in good faith when exercising a right for them to be protected, and not when they act in negligence or abuse.
- In Philippine National Bank v. De Jesus, good faith is defined as “Good faith, here understood, is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. An individual’s personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another.”
- Article 21. Any person who wilfully 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.
- Wassmer v. Velez is a landmark case where the groom abandoned his wife-to-be, or fiancée, two (2) days before their wedding, where they had already made complete preparations—bridal shower, invitations, dresses, accessories, and even an application for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued. Wassmer sued for actual, moral, and exemplary damages against Velez.
- The SC held that this was not a ‘mere breach of promise to marry’. It stated that, “[T]o formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described 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 aforesaid.”
- Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
The Implications
Ultimately, while a simple change of heart is not punishable, the law steps in when the breach crosses into deceit, bad faith, or conduct that offends morals and good customs. In such cases, the jilted party may not claim a right to marriage itself, but may rightfully seek redress for damages under the Civil Code’s provisions on good faith, moral standards, and quasi-delict.
Disclaimer: The content of this blog is intended for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations may vary by jurisdiction, and the applicability of the information herein may differ depending on specific facts and circumstances. Accessing or reading this content does not create an attorney–client relationship. For legal concerns or tailored guidance, please consult a qualified lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
Whether you are based in the Philippines or overseas, STLAF offers legal services to both local and international clients. Our team is equipped to assist with cross-border matters, provide jurisdiction-specific guidance, and help you navigate complex legal challenges with confidence.
To read more STLAF legal tidbits, visit www.stlaf.global/bits-of-law.
For comments, suggestions, and inquiries, email legal@stlaf.global.
Author/s: Patricia Minimo
About the author: Patricia is STLAF's Legal Writer-Researcher. She is a Communication graduate from the University of the Philippines – Baguio with a major in Journalism and a minor in Speech Communication.