#4 WASSMER vs VELEZ Facts: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love decided to get

married on September 4, 1954. On the day of the supposed marriage, Velez left a note for his bride-to-be that day to postpone their wedding because his mother opposes it. Therefore, Velez did not appear and was not heard from again. Beatriz sued Velez for damages and Velez failed to answer and was declared in default. Judgement was rendered ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff P2,000 as actual damages P25,000 as moral and exemplary damages, P2,500 as attorneys fees. An attempt by the Court for amicable settlement was given chance but failed, thereby rendered judgment hence this appeal. Issue: Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an actionable wrong in this case. Held: Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But formally set a wedding and go through all the necessary preparations and publicity and only to walk out of it when matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpable and unjustifiable to good customs which holds liability in accordance with Art. 21 on the New Civil Code. When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under the same, moral and exemplary damages may not be awarded when it is proven that the defendant clearly acted in wanton, reckless and oppressive manner.

#14 CANCIO V. ISIP FACTS: Cancio filed 3 counts of violation of BP 22 against Isip, who had issued 3 bad checks. The case was dismissed. Subsequently, 3 cases for estafa were filed. The cases were dismissed. Cancio then filed a civil case for collection of sum of money to recover the value of the 3 checks from Isip. Isip moved to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by res judicata and that Cancio was guilty of forum-shopping. ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent bars the institution of a civil action for the collection of the value of the checks subject of the estafa cases. HELD: Under Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal procedure, the independent civil action actions may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action based on Article 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. Applying Article 31 of the Civil Code, the complaint filed by petitioner show that his cause of action is based on culpa contractual, an independent action which may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. As such, it is distinct and independent from the estafa case filed against the offender and may proceed regardless of the result of the criminal proceedings.

#15 BELTRAN vs PEOPLE FACTS: Beltran and Charmaine Felix married each other. Theyve had 4 children since then but after 24 years of marriage Beltran filed an action for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage due to Felixs psychological incapacity. Felix countered that Beltran left the conjugal home to cohabit with a certain Milagros and that she filed a case of concubinage against Beltran. The lower court found probable cause against Beltran and Milagros. In order to forestall the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him, Beltran raised the issue that the civil case he filed is a prejudicial question to the criminal case filed by Milagros. He said that the courts hearing the cases may issue conflicting rulings if the criminal case will not be suspended until the civil case gets resolved. The lower court denied Beltrans petition and so did Judge Tuazon of the RTC upon appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the declaration of nullity of the petitioners marriage is a prejudicial question. HELD: The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of Beltrans marriage is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.