THE Supreme Court, ruling in a love story gone awry, has reversed a Court of Appeals ruling that ordered a Filipina to return P500,000 given to her by her German fiancé so she could buy a lot where they can construct their conjugal home.
The case involved Jhona Guevarra and her fiancé, identified in court papers as Jan Banach, who met through a pastor and later became a couple.
They agreed to get married, with Banach giving Guevarra P500,000 to buy a lot for their conjugal home.
However, Guevarra broke up with Banach after she found out that he was not a divorcee, as he led her to believe, and was still married to his third wife.
Banach sued Guevarra and her parents before a Regional Trial Court, asking that the money be returned to him. He claimed that Guevarra had repeatedly expressed her love and willingness to marry him so he would send her money, adding her acts amounted to fraud, or at the very least, unjust enrichment.
The RTC ruled in favor of Banach and was awarded moral damages and attorney’s fee but Guevarra appealed the case to the CA.
The appellate court, in a decision dated January 29, 2007, ordered Guevarra and her parents to return the money under the principle of unjust enrichment.
But the appellate court deleted the awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees, 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.
Both parties sought reconsideration of the CA decision, which was denied. The case was elevated to the SC, with the main issue being whether or not the order to return the P500,000 to Banach was proper.
The SC agreed with the CA that Banach’s actions were tainted with fraud and deceit, and that he did not have the purest intentions in marrying Guevarra.
It also noted that Banach lied about his marital status, and even hid his true name from Guevarra.
The decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen also deleted the award of actual damages amounting to P500,000 to Banach. Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Rosmari Carandang, Rodil Zalameda, Ricardo Rosario and Jose Midas Marquez.
The decision was promulgated on November 29, 2021 but was only uploaded by the SC yesterday.
“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. Litigation to the sorrows caused by a broken heart and a broken promise must be discouraged,” the SC said in its decision.
