You are on page 1of 1

Cabague vs.

Auxilio
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte.
Facts:
Felipe Cabague and his son Geronimo sued Matias Auxilio and his daughter Socorro to
recover damages resulting from defendants refusal to carry out the previously agreed
marriage between Socorro and Geronimo
The following are the complaints:
a. That defendants promised marriage if plaintiffs would improve the house in Basud and
spend for the wedding feast and the needs of the bride
b. That plaintiffs made the improvement and spent P700
c. That without any reason, the defendants refused to honor their promise
Defendants moved for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the contract was oral, and
unenforceable
The court dismissed the case
Under the former rules of procedure, when the complaint did not state whether the
contract sued was on writing or not, the statute of frauds could be no ground for demurrer
Under the new rules, defendant may now present a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the contract was not in writing, even if such fact is not apparent on the face of the
complaint. The fact may be proved by him
Issue: WON that the transaction was not in writing can be proven in court
Held: For breach of contract to marry, Geronimo may sue Socorro for damages. But Felipe
cant continue with his suit because the suit is to enforce an agreement in consideration of
marriage. Felipe cant sue Matias on grounds of breach of mutual promise to marry. Felipe
cant sue Socorro for breach of mutual promise to marry
Basically, Geronimo is the only one who can sue Socorro for damages for her failure to
carry out their mutual matrimonial promises
The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this
decision.
Mallion vs. Alcantara
Facts:
Mallion filed a petition with San Pablo City RTC seeking declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Alcantara alleging the respondents psychological incapacity. This petition was
denied. The appeal in the CA was likewise dismissed. After the decision attained finality, he
filed the same petition with San Pablo RTC this time on the grounds that the marriage is
without a valid marriage license. The respondent for her part moved to dismiss the petition
invoking the principle of res judicata.
Issues:
WON res judicata applies. Assuming it does not, would the lack of marriage license
render the marriage null and void?
Held:
Res Judicata applies and lack of marriage license cannot render the
marriage null and void.
The petitioner is barred from instituting another suit where the cause of action is the same
(declaring nullity of his marriage with Alcantara). In the second case, he is only invoking a
different ground which is the lack of marriage license. The judiciary would be squandering
time, effort, and financial resources by litigating the same controversy over again. And
assuming, for arguments sake, that he is not barred from instituting another case, he has
already impliedly conceded the validity of his marriage when he instituted the first case. This
admission binds the petitioner and cures the alleged defect of his marriage.

You might also like