Practice question
Two adults amicably end an engagement before public wedding preparations. No deceit, humiliating scheme or other independently wrongful act is proved. One demands damages solely because the other no longer wishes to marry. What result follows the controlling principle?
- Every refusal to marry creates automatic moral damages
- The bare unfulfilled promise does not itself establish the asserted Article 21 wrong
- A court must order the marriage
- Marriage consent is irrelevant
- An engagement is an irrevocable employment contract
Legal references
- Civil Code, Articles 19-23, 26, 28, 31-33, 1314, 2177, 2183 and 2187: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Guevarra v. Banach, G.R. No. 214016, November 24, 2021, MAIN decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_214016_2021.html
- Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964, MAIN decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1964/dec1964/gr_20089_1964.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.