No. L-20089. December 26, 1964. BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant.

 Damages; Breach of promise to marry; When actionable wrong.—Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the necessary preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs, for which the erring promissor must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 of the New Civil Code.

Same; Same; Same; Moral and exemplary damages may be awarded in an actionable breach of promise suit.—When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under Article 21 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded under Article 2219(10) of ,the said Code. Exemplary damages may also be awarded under Article 2232 of said Code where it is proven that the defendant clearly acted in a wanton, reckless and oppressive manner. Pleading and practice; Affidavits; Affidavit of merits in petition for relief must state facts constituting defense.—An affidavit of merits supporting a petition for relief from judgment must state facts constituting a valid defense. Where such an affidavit merely states conclusions or opinions, it is not valid. Same; Trial by commissioner; Clerk of court may he validly designated.—The procedure of designating the clerk of court as commissioner to receive evidence is sanctioned by Rule 34 (now Rule 33) of the Rules of Court. Same; Same; Same; Defendant’s consent to designation of commissioner not necessary where he is in default.—The defendant’s consent to the designation of the clerk of court as

commissioner to receive evidence is not necessary where he was declared in default and thus had no standing in Court. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch). Caluag, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.      Jalandoni & Jamir for defendant-appellant.      Samson S. Alcantara for plaintiff-appellee. 

Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about

to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance .with Article 21 aforesaid. Defendant urges in his afore-stated petition that the damages awarded were excessive. No question is raised as to the award of actual damages. What defendant would really assert hereunder is that the award of moral and exemplary damages, in the amount of P25,000.00, should be totally eliminated. Per express provision of Article 2219(10) of the New Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code. As to exemplary damages, defendant contends that the same could not be adjudged against him because under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code the condition precedent is that “the def endant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.” The argument is devoid of merit as under the above-narrated circumstances of this case defendant clearly acted in a “wanton x x x, reckless [and] oppressive manner.” This Court’s opinion, however, is that considering the particular circumstances of this case, P15,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages is deemed to be a reasonable award. PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the above-indicated modification, the lower court’s judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs.