G.R. No. 214016. November 24, 2021 ] JHONNA GUEVARRA ET AL., PETITIONER, VS. JAN BANACH, RESPONDENT.

 A mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, as long as it is not of such extent as would palpably and unjustifiably contradict good customs.1 In any case, the party seeking to recover damages must have acted in good faith.

This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 assailing both the Decision3 and Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Regional Trial Court Decision5 finding Jhonna Guevarra (Guevarra) liable to Jan Banach (Banach) for damages arising from a breach of promise to marry.

Based on the Court of Appeals Resolution and other available records, Banach, a German citizen,6 met Guevarra through a certain Pastor Jun Millamina.7 He went on to court Guevarra, visiting her almost every day, giving her gifts, and eventually telling her that he intended to marry her.8

What Banach did not tell Guevarra, however, was that he had still been married to his third wife then. Instead, he told her that he was a divorced man. He also concealed his true identity and made Guevarra and her family believe that his name was Roger Brawner.9

Guevarra, who would confide in Banach her family problems, even including the chances of their family being evicted from their home,10 eventually submitted to Banach's wooing as he offered her a better life. The two agreed to get married, and Banach sent Guevarra P500,000.00 to buy a lot for their conjugal home.11

Yet, when Guevarra found out about Banach's lies and deception, she broke up with him.12

The breakup prompted Banach to sue Guevarra and her parents for damages before the Regional Trial Court.13 Banach anchored his cause of action on the human relations provisions in the Civil Code, particularly Articles 20, 21, and 22.14 He alleged that Guevarra had repeatedly expressed her love and willingness to marry him so that he would send her money, only to break up with him after he had done so.15 He claimed that these acts amounted to fraud, or at the very least, unjust enrichment.16

Banach likewise claimed moral damages for the alleged "moral suffering, anguish, anxiety[,] and sleepless nights" he suffered from Guevarra.17 He also prayed for attorney's fees for having been constrained to litigate to protect his rights.18

On the other hand, Guevarra argued that the money Banach sent her "was a gift, the return of which [was] not actionable."19

The Regional Trial Court found Guevarra and her parents liable to Banach for actual damages. It also awarded moral damages and attorney's fees.20

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its January 29, 2007 Decision, similarly ordered Guevarra and her parents to return the P500,000.00 to Banach under the principle of unjust enrichment. However, it deleted the awards of moral damages and attorney's fees,21 ruling that Banach's actions were tainted with fraud and deceit, and that he did not have the purest intentions in expressing his desire to marry Guevarra.22

The parties sought reconsideration of the Decision.

Banach claimed that he was entitled to moral damages and attorney's fees.23 On the other hand, Guevarra, along with her parents, prayed that the Regional Trial Court's Decision be totally reversed in their favor. She maintained that the P500,000.00 was a gift given to her and, applying the law on natural obligations under Article 1423 of the Civil Code, the return of the money was not actionable.24 She also faulted the Court of Appeals for not applying the doctrine on breach of promise to marry, which states that no such cause of action is recognized in our jurisdiction.25

In the July 14, 2014 Resolution,26 the Court of Appeals denied the Motions for Reconsideration. It refused to award moral damages because Banach failed to prove that Guevarra acted with fraud or deceit; the timing of the breakup was understandable since it happened around the time that Guevarra learned of Banach's misrepresentation.27 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals found no basis in the claim for attorney's fees.28

However, the Court of Appeals rejected Guevarra and her parents' theory that the law on natural obligations should apply. It found that since Banach sent Guevarra money for their plan to get married, it was only proper to order the reimbursement under the principle of unjust enrichment because no marriage ever materialized.29

Thus, Guevarra filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari30 against Banach. Petitioner insists that either the law on natural obligations or the doctrine on breach of promise to marry is applicable.31 Anchoring her claims on laws and doctrines that supposedly bar the return of the money, she insists that the P500,000.00 was a gift, the return of which is not actionable.32