GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH vs.

CA 219 SCRA 115

FACTS:  Private respondent Marilou Gonzales filed a complaint for damages against
Gasheem Shookat, an Iranian Citizen, of breach of promise to marry. She said that both
of them agreed to marry after the end of the school semester and the petitioner asked
the approval of her parents. She stated that the petitioner forced to live with him in his
apartments. Respondent was a virgin before she was forced to live with the Iranian
(petitioner).  A week before she filed her complaint, petitioner maltreated, assaulted
and asked not to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already married to
someone living in Bacolod City.
                On the petitioner’s counterclaim, he said that he never proposed marriage with
the private respondent; he neither forced her to live with him and he did not maltreat
her but only told her to stop from coming into his apartment because he discovered that
she had deceived him by stealing his money and passport. He insisted that he must be
awarded for damages for he suffered mental anxiety and a besmirched reputation due
to the complaint of the private respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is to be held liable for damages for breach of
promise to marry.

HELD: A breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.  This court held
that where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of
his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes
the proximate cause of the giving of herself in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in
reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or
deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the
sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of
such promise to marry but because of fraud and deceit and the willful injury to her
honor and reputation which followed thereafter. Such act done by the petitioner is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws of the country. The
court ordered that the petition be denied with costs against the petitioner.
219 SCRA 115 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Breach of promise to Marry – Article
21 of the Civil Code
In August 1986, while working as a waitress in Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Marilou
Gonzales, then 21 years old, met Gashem Shookat Baksh, a 29 year old exchange
student from Iran who was studying medicine in Dagupan. The two got really close and
intimate. On Marilou’s account, she said that Gashem later offered to marry her at the
end of the semester. Marilou then introduced Gashem to her parents where they
expressed their intention to get married. Marilou’s parents then started inviting
sponsors and relatives to the wedding. They even started looking for animals to
slaughter for the occasion.
Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment where they had
sexual intercourse. But in no time, their relationship went sour as Gashem began
maltreating Marilou. Gashem eventually revoked his promise of marrying Marilou and
he told her that he is already married to someone in Bacolod City. So Marilou went
home and later sued Gashem for damages.
The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in moral damages. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
On appeal, Gashem averred that he never proposed marriage to Marilou and that he
cannot be adjudged to have violated Filipino customs and traditions since he, being an
Iranian, was not familiar with Filipino customs and traditions.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.
HELD: Yes. Gashem is liable to pay for damages in favor of Marilou not really because
of his breach of promise to marry her but based on Article 21 of the Civil Code which
provides:
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.
Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit
and fraud employed by Gashem that constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Civil
Code. His promise of marrying Marilou was a deceitful scheme to lure her into sexual
congress. As found by the trial court, Marilou was not a woman of loose morals. She
was a virgin before she met Gashem. She would not have surrendered herself to
Gashem had Gashem not promised to marry her. Gashem’s blatant disregard of Filipino
traditions on marriage and on the reputation of Filipinas is contrary to morals, good
customs, and public policy. As a foreigner who is enjoying the hospitality of our
country and even taking advantage of the opportunity to study here he is expected to
respect our traditions. Any act contrary will render him liable under Article 21 of the
Civil Code.
The Supreme Court also elucidated that Article 21 was meant to expand the concepts of
torts and quasi delict. It is meant to cover situations such as this case where the breach
complained of is not strictly covered by existing laws. It was meant as a legal remedy
for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to
specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books – such as the absence of a law
penalizing a the breach of promise to marry.
The Supreme Court however agreed with legal luminaries that if the promise to marry
was made and there was carnal knowledge because of it, then moral damages may be
recovered (presence of moral or criminal seduction), Except if there was mutual lust; or
if expenses were made because of the promise (expenses for the wedding), then actual
damages may be recovered.
Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs CA
TITLE: Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs. CA
CITATION: 219 SCRA 115

FACTS:
Private respondent, Marilou Gonzales, filed a complaint dated October 27, 1987 for
damages against the petitioner for the alleged breach of their agreement to get married. 
She met the petitioner in Dagupan where the latter was an Iranian medical exchange
student who later courted her and proposed marriage.  The petitioner even went to
Marilou’s house to secure approval of her parents.  The petitioner then forced the
respondent to leave with him in his apartment.  Marilou was a virgin before she lived
with him.  After a week, she filed a complaint because the petitioner started maltreating
and threatening her.  He even tied the respondent in the apartment while he was in
school and drugged her.  Marilou at one time became pregnant but the petitioner
administered a drug to abort the baby.

Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and told Marilou to not live with him
since he is already married to someone in Bacolod.  He claimed that he never proposed
marriage or agreed to be married neither sought consent and approval of Marliou’s
parents.  He claimed that he asked Marilou to stay out of his apartment since the latter
deceived him by stealing money and his passport.  The private respondent prayed for
damages and reimbursements of actual expenses.

ISSUE: Whether breach of promise to marry can give rise to cause for damages.

HELD:

The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. 
The court held that when a man uses his promise of marriage to deceive a woman to
consent to his malicious desires, he commits fraud and willfully injures the woman.  In
that instance, the court found that petitioner’s deceptive promise to marry led Marilou
to surrender her virtue and womanhood.

Moral damages can be claimed when such promise to marry was a deceptive ploy to
have carnal knowledge with the woman and actual damages should be paid for the
wedding preparation expenses.  Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in disregard
of the laws of the country.

Therefore, SC set aside the decision of CA awarding damages to the respondent.  

Issue: Is a breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong?

Is Article 21 of the Civil Code applicable in the case?

Held: [I]The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable
wrong. Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the New Civil Code the
provisions that would have made it so.

This notwithstanding, the said Code contains a provision, Article 21, which is designed
to expand the concept of torts or quasi-delicts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate
legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human
foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.

Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his
love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the
proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he
had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle
scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept his and to obtain her
consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not
because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the
willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential
however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy.
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals
 
GR No. 97336 – February 19, 1993
FACTS: Petitioner was a medicine student at Lyceum Northwestern Colleges at
Dagupan City. He was an Iranian exchange student and was 29 years old. Respondent
was a former waitress on a luncheonette, and was 22 years old. Petitioner was allegedly
the lover of the respondent, and was said to promise marriage to the latter, which
convinced her to live with him in his apartment. It was even alleged that the petitioner
went to the house of the respondent to inform her family about the marriage on the end
of the semester. However, the marriage did not materialize, with several beatings and
maltreatment experienced by the respondent from the petitioner. The case was filed in
the RTC of Pangasinan, and the decision was held in favor of the respondent. However,
the petitioner claimed that the judgment of the RTC was an error, for the claims of the
respondent are not true, and that he did not know about the custom of the Filipinos; his
acts were in accordance of his custom. The decision of the RTC was affirmed in toto by
the Court of Appeals. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent could claim payment for the damages incurred
by the petitioner.
RULING: Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However, since the
respondent was proved to have a good moral character, and that she had just let her
virginity be taken away by the petitioner since the latter offered a promise of marriage,
then she could ask for payment for damages. Furthermore, since she let her lover, the
petitioner, “deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to marry was true, and
not due to her carnal desire, then she could have her claims against the petitioner.
Moreover, the father of the respondent had already looked for pigs and chicken for the
marriage reception and the sponsors for the marriage, and then damages were caused
by the petitioner against the respondents, which qualified the claims of the respondent
against the petitioner
BAKSH v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 97336 February 19, 1993
Ponente: Davide Jr.,J

FACTS:
Marilou Gonzales filed for damages against the petitioner for the alleged violation of
their agreement to get married. The petitioner, an Iranian medical exchange student,
courted and later on proposed marriage to Gonzales and therefore agreed to get
married by October 1987. Sometime in August the petitioner asked Gonzales to live in
with him, and a week before the filing of the complaint, Baksh turned cold towards
Gonzales and started maltreating her causing her to sustain injuries. The trial court
ruled in favour of Gonzales and the court of appeals affirmed the decision. Petitioner
now assails the decisions of the courts. 

ISSUE:
Is the petitioner liable for violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines?

HELD:
The petitioner is liable for damages not because of the marriage agreement but because
of violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Baksh employed deceit
and fraud in promising marriage to Gonzales, a womon of no loose morals, in order to
lure her to do sexual acts with him. Baksh blatantly disregarded Filipino traditions on
marriage and acted contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy.