BEATRIZ GALANG, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MAXIMINO QUINIT AND RODRIGO QUINIT, RESPONDENTS.

This is an action against Rodrigo Quinit and his father Maximino Quinit to
recover damages claimed to have been sustained by plaintiff Beatriz Galang for
an alleged breach of promise on the part of Rodrigo Quinit to marry her. In due
course, the Court of First Instance of Baguio, in which the case was originally
instituted, rendered a decision sentencing the defendants jointly and severally
to pay the sums of P275.00, by way of actual damages, P5,000,00, as moral
damages, and P500.00, as attorney’s fees, apart from the costs. On appeal, taken
by the defendants, the Court of Appeals absolved Maximino Quinit, and
accordingly, reversed said decision insofar as he is concerned, and modified it
as regards Rodrigo Quinit, by eliminating the awards for moral damages and
attorney’s fees. The case is before us on appeal by certiorari taken by
plaintiff Beatriz Galang.

As found by the Court of Appeals, it appears that plaintiff “and Rodrigo
Quinit were engaged, but Rodrigo’s parents were strongly opposed to their
marriage”; that “from April 27, 1955”, plaintiff “and Rodrigo lived as husband
and wife in the house of Adolfo Dagawan located at Colorado Falls, Tuba,
Mountain Province, until May 9 when Rodrigo left and kever returned”; that “both
were from the same town of Sison, Pangasinan, and their love relations started
in the year 1953, the two having exchanged a long series of love letters since
then until they separated”, and that “at the time when they went to Colorado
Falls, both were of age.”

The evidence on other pertinent facts is, however, conflicting. In the
language of the decision appealed from, plaintiff—also referred to therein as
appellee—tried to prove

“* * * that Rodrigo courted her in 1953 and they, thereafter, became engaged,
albeit Rodrigo’s mother was opposed to their marriage; that on April 15, 1955
Rodrigo and his father went to her house and her marriage with Rodrigo were
arranged, with the concurrence of her mother, appellant Maximino Quinit having
agreed to give dowry and to defray the expenses of the marriage, with the
exception of the wedding dress of appellee; that they agreed to have the
marriage celebrated in Baguio, for which reason on April 27, 1955, appellee,
Rodrigo and the latter’s father left for Bagnio; that upon arriving at Colorado
Falls, however, Maximino made them alight from the bus and took them to the
house of Adolfo Dagawan with whom Maximino agreed that appellee and Rodrigo
would stay in said house, Maximino to pay P5.00 daily for their lodging and
P6.00 daily for their board; that Maximino further asked Dagawan to make all
arrangements for their wedding in Baguio and to act as their sponsor; that after
making these arrangements Maximino left, while appellee and Rodrigo remained in
Dagawan’s house where they lived as husband and wife until May 9; that on May 7,
appellee and Rodrigo, accompanied by Dagawan, went to Baguio to secure a
marriage license but failed because Rodrigo did not have a residence
certificate, although both prospective contracting parties signed the
corresponding application; that on May 9, on the pretext that he was going to
their hometown to get his residence certificate, Rodrigo left Colorado Falls and
never returned; that when appellee returned to their hometown (Sison,
Pangasinan), she found out that Rodrigo’s parents had spirited him away because,
in their opinion, appellee’s reputation was unsavory.”

Upon the other hand, the defendants sought to establish that Rodrigo and
plaintiff

“* * * were engaged; that Rodrigo’s parents were opposed to their marriage;
that while Rodrigo was agreeable to marrying appellee, he wanted the marriage
to take place after his graduation, while appellee was impatient and wanted the
marriage to be held at an earlier date; that on April 26, 1955, in view of
Rodrigo’s continued relations with appellee, his parents told him to leave the
parental home, for which reason on that date he left their house with his
belongings and some gantas of rice; that before leaving their hometown he passed
by the house of appellee and told her what had happened and further told her
that he was intending to go to Manila to look for a job; that appellee convinced
him to go, instead, to Colorado Falls where they could discuss their plans and
so there he went—followed later by appellee—both staying at the house of
Dagawan; that because Rodrigo persistently refused to marry appellee, the
tetter’s relatives, accompanied by policemen and constabulary soldiers, arrived
at the place and tried to intimidate him; that in view of his continued refusal
they brought him down to Sison where he was allowed to go home; that thereupon
his parents placed him under the custody of Mayor Madriaga of the neighborinjr
town of Rosario where he stayed from May 1, to June, 1955; that sometime during
the month of June, Adolfo Dagawan sought Rodrigo on the pretext that he was
going to tell him something important and was able to lure him to a secluded
place where he was made to sign an application for a marriage license; that
because of his nonappearance before a notary public, the latter refused to
acknowledge the application.

“With respect to Maximino Quinit the evidence for appellants tends to show
that he had never agreed to have his son marry appellee nor to give a dowry to
the latter; that he did not go with appellee and Rodrigo to Colorado Falls and
that he did not concoct, much less carry out any plan to have his son satisfy
his lust and then get rid of appellee.”

The court of first instance sustained plaintiff’s pretense, but the Court of
Appeals considered her evidence unworthy of credence, and, hence, absolved
Maximino Quinit. Plaintiff maintains that the Court of Appeals had erred in the
appreciation of the evidence, but the findings of said Court on the credibility
of said evidence are beyond our power of review on appeal by certiorari and,
consequently, conclusive upon us.

It is next urged that said Court had also erred in not awarding moral damages
to plaintiff, who insists that moral damages for breach of promise to marry are
collectible under our laws, but this question has already been settled adversely
to plaintiff’s pretense in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals, 109 Phil., 629; 60
Off. Gaz., (13) 1846.

The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, therefore,
without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.