Cabague vs. Auxilio

Parol evidence is inadmissible to prove an agreement made in consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry, but a direct action for damages for breach of a mutual promise to marry between the prospective spouses may be maintained on the basis of oral evidence.

Felipe Cabague and his son Geronimo sued Matias Auxilio and his daughter Socorro in the justice of the peace court of Basud, Camarines Norte, to recover damages for the defendants' refusal to carry out an agreed marriage between Geronimo and Socorro. The complaint alleged that the defendants promised the marriage on the condition that the plaintiffs would improve the defendants' house and spend ₱700 for the wedding feast and the bride's needs. The dispute centers on the enforceability of this oral agreement under the Rules of Court's rule on parol evidence for agreements made in consideration of marriage.

Felipe Cabague and his son Geronimo sued Matias Auxilio and his daughter Socorro to recover damages resulting from the defendants' refusal to carry out a previously agreed marriage between Socorro and Geronimo. The complaint alleged that the defendants promised the marriage provided the plaintiffs would improve the defendants' house in Basud and spend for the wedding feast and the needs of the bride. Relying on these promises, the plaintiffs made the improvements and spent ₱700. Without cause, the defendants refused to honor their pledged word.

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the contract was oral and unenforceable under the rule of evidence prohibiting parol evidence to prove an agreement made in consideration of marriage. The justice of the peace court dismissed the case. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiffs reproduced their complaint, and the defendants reiterated their motion to dismiss. The Court of First Instance issued an order of dismissal, prompting the plaintiffs to perfect the present appeal.

• Statute of Frauds: Respondents argued that the oral contract was unenforceable under the rule of evidence, as parol evidence is inadmissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage.

• Admissibility of Parol Evidence: Whether parol evidence is admissible to prove the oral agreement made in consideration of marriage between the parties.
• Actionability of Mutual Promise to Marry: Whether the prospective groom may maintain an action for damages against the prospective bride for breach of their mutual promise to marry.

• Admissibility of Parol Evidence: No. Parol evidence is not admissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry, barring Felipe Cabague's action against the defendants.
• Actionability of Mutual Promise to Marry: Yes. Geronimo may continue his action against Socorro for damages resulting from her failure to carry out their mutual matrimonial promises, as parol evidence is admissible for such mutual promises.

• Admissibility of Parol Evidence: The understanding between the parties involves two kinds of agreements: one between Felipe Cabague and the defendants in consideration of the marriage of Socorro and Geronimo, and another between the two lovers as a mutual promise to marry. Under Rule 123, Section 21(c) of the Rules of Court, parol evidence is not admissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry. Felipe Cabague's action cannot be maintained on the theory of a mutual promise to marry, as it was an agreement in consideration of marriage between the parents. This situation is analogous to Atienza vs. Castillo, where the promise could not be proved orally because the groom was suing to enforce a contract between the parents.
• Actionability of Mutual Promise to Marry: For breach of a mutual promise to marry, Geronimo may sue Socorro for damages. Evidence of such a mutual promise is admissible. The action between Geronimo and Socorro is distinct from the agreement between Felipe and Matias. Because the Statute of Frauds expressly excludes mutual promises to marry from the prohibition on parol evidence, Geronimo's action against Socorro is proper and must be allowed to proceed.

• Statute of Frauds (Agreements in Consideration of Marriage) — Under the Rules of Court, parol evidence is not admissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry. The Court applied this by distinguishing the agreement between the parents (Felipe and Matias), which falls under the prohibition, from the mutual promise between the lovers (Geronimo and Socorro), which is the exception allowing parol evidence and sustaining an action for damages.

• "According to the Rules of Court parol evidence is not admissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry." — This states the controlling evidentiary rule that governs the enforceability of oral agreements made in consideration of marriage.
• "For breach of that mutual promise to marry, Geronimo may sue Socorro for damages. This is such action, and evidence of such mutual promise is admissible." — This clarifies the exception to the Statute of Frauds and provides the ratio decidendi for remanding the case to allow the prospective groom's action.

• Atienza vs. Castillo, 40 Off. Gaz., p. 2048 — Distinguished. In that case, the groom sued his bride and her parents to enforce a contract between the parents, which could not be proved orally. Here, the prospective groom sues the prospective bride directly on their mutual promise, which is admissible.
• Domalagan vs. Bolifer, 33 Phil., 471 — Cited as a comparative reference regarding the nature of the action and the application of the rule on parol evidence.

• Rule 123, Section 21(c), Rules of Court — Provides that parol evidence is not admissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry. Applied to bar Felipe Cabague's action but allow Geronimo Cabague's action against Socorro.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.