December 1906 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > December 1906 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-2929 December 7, 1906 - FAUSTA BATARRA v. FRANCISCO MARCOS
007 Phil 156:
007 Phil 156:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-2929. December 7, 1906. ]
FAUSTA BATARRA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO MARCOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Maximo Mina, for Appellant.
Leocadio Joaquin, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. MARRIAGE; BREACH OF PROMISE; ILLEGAL CONSIDERATION. — A promise of marriage based upon carnal connection founded upon an unlawful consideration and no action can be maintained by the woman against the man therefor where the woman is over the age of 23, and hence the act does not constitute the crime of estupro. (Arts. 1305, 1306, Civil Code.)
2. ID.; ID.; DAMAGES. — Nor can an action be maintained under article 1902 of the Civil Code, for the woman voluntarily participated in the act.
2. ID.; ID.; DAMAGES. — Nor can an action be maintained under article 1902 of the Civil Code, for the woman voluntarily participated in the act.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J. :
The judgment of the court below commences as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"This case is now before the court for trial upon a complaint by the plaintiff to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage by defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant inducing the plaintiff to submit herself to sexual relation with him on account of such promise of marriage."cralaw virtua1aw library
Judgment was entered in that court in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 500 pesos. The defendant excepted to such judgment and has brought the case here by bill of exceptions.
The facts appearing in the record do not show the commission of the crime of seduction, as that crime is defined by article 443 of the Penal Code, because it does not appear that the plaintiff was under 23 years of age.
The judgment can not, therefore, be based upon article 449 of that code, which provides for indemnification in cases of rape, seduction, and abduction.
It must rest upon the proposition that the defendant, having failed to perform his promise of marriage, is liable for the breach of that contract and for damages resulting from his seduction of the plaintiff, the carnal connection being the consideration (cause) of the promise. This proposition can not be maintained. If the criminal intercourse between the parties was a crime or misdemeanor, the crime or misdemeanor was common to both parties, and article 1305 of the Civil Code prevents a recovery. The same is true if the act did not constitute a crime or misdemeanor. It was in any event an immoral act and the fault lay with both parties. By the provisions of article 1306 of the same code there can, is such a case, be no recovery by one against the other.
Nor can there be a recovery under the provisions of article 1902 of the Civil Code, which provides as follows: "A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done;" for the plaintiff voluntarily participated in the act. "Scienti et volenti nula fit injuria neque dolus."cralaw virtua1aw library
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the defendant is acquitted of the complaint, with the costs of the first instance. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court.
After expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the record be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, and Carson, JJ., concur.
Tracey, J., concurs in the result.
Johnson, J., did not sit in this case.
"This case is now before the court for trial upon a complaint by the plaintiff to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage by defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant inducing the plaintiff to submit herself to sexual relation with him on account of such promise of marriage."cralaw virtua1aw library
Judgment was entered in that court in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 500 pesos. The defendant excepted to such judgment and has brought the case here by bill of exceptions.
The facts appearing in the record do not show the commission of the crime of seduction, as that crime is defined by article 443 of the Penal Code, because it does not appear that the plaintiff was under 23 years of age.
The judgment can not, therefore, be based upon article 449 of that code, which provides for indemnification in cases of rape, seduction, and abduction.
It must rest upon the proposition that the defendant, having failed to perform his promise of marriage, is liable for the breach of that contract and for damages resulting from his seduction of the plaintiff, the carnal connection being the consideration (cause) of the promise. This proposition can not be maintained. If the criminal intercourse between the parties was a crime or misdemeanor, the crime or misdemeanor was common to both parties, and article 1305 of the Civil Code prevents a recovery. The same is true if the act did not constitute a crime or misdemeanor. It was in any event an immoral act and the fault lay with both parties. By the provisions of article 1306 of the same code there can, is such a case, be no recovery by one against the other.
Nor can there be a recovery under the provisions of article 1902 of the Civil Code, which provides as follows: "A person who by an act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done;" for the plaintiff voluntarily participated in the act. "Scienti et volenti nula fit injuria neque dolus."cralaw virtua1aw library
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the defendant is acquitted of the complaint, with the costs of the first instance. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court.
After expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the record be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, and Carson, JJ., concur.
Tracey, J., concurs in the result.
Johnson, J., did not sit in this case.
