Okay. Here's the situation. The bride is waiting outside the church in the bridal car. The wedding planner is on her cellular calling the groom, his brother or his best man. They're already late. Minutes pass by and nobody could find the groom. An hour later, everyone is abuzz. They realize that there's going to be no wedding.
Under Philippine law and as a general rule, the bride has no cause of action to sue the groom for moral damages. Neither can she, by an action for specific performance, compel the groom to marry her. Mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. The underlying principle behind this is the law's view on marriage. Our Family Code defines marriage as a "special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman for the establishment of conjugal and family life." Idealistically, it simply means that marriage is or should be based on love.
Under Philippine law and as a general rule, the bride has no cause of action to sue the groom for moral damages. Neither can she, by an action for specific performance, compel the groom to marry her. Mere breach of a promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. The underlying principle behind this is the law's view on marriage. Our Family Code defines marriage as a "special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman for the establishment of conjugal and family life." Idealistically, it simply means that marriage is or should be based on love.
Others may think that Congress shied away from putting love in the definition because (a) of the pandemonium it would create to introduce a legal definition of love; or (b) love as a word is simply just not legal sounding.
But the truth is that Congress has no power to legislate on love.
Anyway. That is the general rule. Our Supreme Court has ruled that an act that is not against the law may be still be punished if it is committed in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. According to the court, "to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different."
I've read somewhere that wedding insurance is an established product in the UK. Coverage typically includes cancellations due to death, sickness or injury.
Cold feet, however, are not covered.
Pleaded by Appellant on Monday, April 03, 2006 @ 9:34 PM with 5 Objections
