Batara vs. Marcos

A promise of marriage whose consideration is sexual intercourse is void for being contrary to morals, and no action for damages for breach of that promise lies where the plaintiff voluntarily participated in the immoral act.

Fausta Batarra claimed that Francisco Marcos induced her to submit to sexual relations with him upon his promise that he would marry her. Marcos subsequently refused to fulfill the promise, prompting Batarra to bring suit for damages.

• Nature of the Action: Fausta Batarra filed a complaint to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage, alleging that Francisco Marcos had induced her to have carnal relations with him on account of his promise to marry her.

• The Alleged Promise and Sexual Intercourse: According to the complaint, Marcos’s promise of marriage was the inducement for Batarra to consent to sexual intercourse. The parties did engage in sexual relations. The record did not show that Batarra was under 23 years of age, nor were any other qualifying circumstances of the crime of seduction, as defined by the Penal Code, established.

• Breach of Promise: Marcos subsequently failed to marry Batarra, causing her damage. She sought compensation for the injury resulting from the breach.

• Void for Immoral Cause: The defendant argued that the promise of marriage was founded on carnal connection as its consideration (cause), an immoral cause, and therefore the contract was void under Article 1306 of the Civil Code.
• In Pari Delicto: He maintained that both parties participated in the immoral act and, by force of Article 1305 of the Civil Code, neither could recover damages from the other.
• No Quasi-Delict: He contended that the plaintiff voluntarily consented to the sexual intercourse, precluding any recovery under the quasi-delict provision of Article 1902 of the Civil Code.

• Breach of Promise and Damages: The plaintiff maintained that the defendant’s failure to fulfill his promise of marriage, which had induced her to submit to sexual relations, constituted a breach causing injury, for which she was entitled to recover damages.
• Remedy Analogous to Seduction Indemnity: Alternatively, the claim was positioned as one for the damages akin to the indemnification afforded to victims of seduction, even if the technical elements of the crime were absent.

• Validity of the Promise: Whether a promise of marriage whose consideration is illicit carnal connection is enforceable.
• Right of Action in Pari Delicto: Whether a party who voluntarily engages in an immoral sexual act can recover damages from the other party for breach of the promise that induced the act.
• Quasi-Delict: Whether damages may be recovered under Article 1902 of the Civil Code for harm caused by a breach of promise when the plaintiff consented to the very act forming the basis of the injury.

• Validity of the Promise: The promise of marriage, resting as it did upon the prior or simultaneous carnal connection as its cause, was void for being grounded on an immoral consideration. Article 1306 of the Civil Code precluded any recovery based on such a contract.

• Right of Action in Pari Delicto: The sexual intercourse, whether criminal or merely immoral, was an act to which both parties consented and in which both shared fault. Under Article 1305 of the Civil Code, where the act is a crime or misdemeanor common to both parties, or even if not criminal but nonetheless immoral, no action may be maintained by one participant against the other. The parties stood in pari delicto, thereby barring any claim for damages.

• Quasi-Delict: No recovery could be had under Article 1902 of the Civil Code, which requires fault or negligence. The plaintiff’s injury arose from an act she voluntarily engaged in, and the maxim scienti et volenti non fit injuria neque dolus (no injury is done to one who knows and consents) applied.

• In Pari Delicto (Civil Code, Art. 1305) — When a criminal or immoral act is common to both parties, neither may seek recovery from the other. The Court applied the doctrine to bar Batarra’s suit because she voluntarily participated in the sexual relations that formed the consideration for the promise of marriage.
• Void Contract for Immoral Cause (Civil Code, Art. 1306) — A contract whose cause is contrary to morals is null and void. The promise of marriage, having as its cause the illicit carnal intercourse, produced no enforceable obligation.
• Scienti et Volenti Non Fit Injuria — One who knowingly and willingly places herself in a position of harm cannot complain of the resulting injury. The maxim was invoked to defeat any claim grounded on quasi-delict under Article 1902.

• “If the criminal intercourse between the parties was a crime or misdemeanor, the crime or misdemeanor was common to both parties, and article 1305 of the Civil Code prevents a recovery. The same is true if the act did not constitute a crime or misdemeanor. It was in any event an immoral act and the fault lay with both parties.”

• “Nor can there be a recovery under the provisions of article 1902 of the Civil Code … for the plaintiff voluntarily participated in the act. ‘Scienti et volenti nulla fit injuria neque dolus.’”

N/A — The decision does not cite any judicial precedent; it rests exclusively on statutory interpretation and general principles of law.

• Article 443, Penal Code — Defines the crime of seduction; cited to explain that the elements of seduction were not present because the plaintiff’s age (under 23 years) was not shown.
• Article 449, Penal Code — Provides for indemnification in cases of rape, seduction, and abduction; raised as a possible basis of liability but rejected because the crime of seduction was not established.
• Article 1305, Civil Code — Prevents recovery between parties who are both in fault in a criminal or misdemeanor act; applied to bar the action whether the sexual act was criminal or simply immoral.
• Article 1306, Civil Code — Declares void contracts founded on an immoral consideration; applied to annihilate the promise of marriage whose cause was the carnal connection.
• Article 1902, Civil Code — Governs quasi-delictual liability for fault or negligence; held inapplicable because the plaintiff voluntarily consented to the injurious act.

Justices Torres, Mapa, and Carson concurred. Justice Tracey concurred in the result. Justice Johnson did not sit.

N/A — No dissenting opinion was recorded.