Pe vs. Pe

A married man who, through deliberate scheme or trickery, seduces an unmarried woman and causes loss or injury to her family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy is liable for damages under Article 21 of the New Civil Code, even without direct proof of bad faith, where the surrounding circumstances irresistibly lead to that conclusion.

Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers, and sisters of Lolita Pe, a 24-year-old unmarried woman who resided with her family in Gasan, Marinduque. Defendant Alfonso Pe, a Chinese national and a married man, worked as an agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory and stayed in the same town of Gasan in connection with his occupation. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral relative of Lolita's father, and because of this connection and the similarity in their family name, the plaintiffs regarded him as a member of their family and allowed him free access to their home. The action was grounded on Article 21 of the New Civil Code, which provides that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers, and sisters of Lolita Pe, a 24-year-old unmarried woman who, at the time of her disappearance on April 14, 1957, was residing with her brothers and sisters at 54-B España Extension, Quezon City. Defendant Alfonso Pe is a married man and a Chinese national who worked as an agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. He used to stay in the town of Gasan, Marinduque, in connection with his occupation, where Lolita was staying with her parents. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral relative of Lolita's father. Because of this relationship and the similarity in their family name, defendant became close to the plaintiffs, who regarded him as a member of their family.

Sometime in 1952, defendant began frequenting the house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. The two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine trysts not only in the town of Gasan but also in Boac, where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school. They exchanged love notes revealing not only their infatuation but also the extent to which they had carried their relationship. The rumors about their love affair reached the ears of Lolita's parents sometime in 1955, and since then defendant was forbidden from going to their house and from further seeing Lolita. The plaintiffs even filed deportation proceedings against defendant, who is a Chinese national. Nevertheless, the affair between defendant and Lolita continued.

On April 14, 1957, Lolita disappeared from the residence at España Extension, Quezon City. After she left, her brothers and sisters checked her things and found that her clothes were gone. A note on a crumpled piece of paper was found inside Lolita's aparador, written on a small slip of paper approximately four by three inches, in a handwriting recognized to be that of the defendant. The note read: "Honey, suppose I leave here on Sunday night, and that's 13th of this month and we will have a date on the 14th, that's Monday morning at 10 a.m. Reply Love." The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the police authorities and the NBI, but up to the present there is no news or trace of her whereabouts.

The trial court found that defendant had carried on a love affair with Lolita, an unmarried woman, while being a married man himself. However, it declared that defendant could not be held liable for moral damages, it appearing that plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant, being aware of his marital status, deliberately and in bad faith tried to win Lolita's affection. The trial court reasoned that it was possible the defendant and Lolita simply fell in love with each other without any desire on their part and against their better judgment, and dismissed the complaint accordingly.

• Liability under Article 21: Whether a married man who carried on an illicit love affair with an unmarried woman, causing injury to her family's reputation, may be held liable for damages under Article 21 of the New Civil Code even absent direct proof that he deliberately and in bad faith tried to win the woman's affection.

• Liability under Article 21: Yes. The circumstances of the case irresistibly showed that defendant deliberately and through clever strategy seduced Lolita, thereby causing injury to her family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy within the contemplation of Article 21 of the New Civil Code.

• Liability under Article 21: The trial court erred in requiring direct proof of bad faith and in speculating that the defendant and Lolita may have simply fallen in love without deliberate inducement. The chain of circumstances established the contrary: defendant began frequenting Lolita's house on the pretext of learning to pray the rosary; he exploited the family's trust, gained through his adoptive kinship and the similarity in family name, to secure free access to Lolita; the two fell in love and conducted clandestine affairs in Gasan and Boac; when the affair was discovered in 1955, the parents forbade defendant from visiting and even filed deportation proceedings against him; yet defendant persisted in the affair; and upon Lolita's disappearance, a note in defendant's handwriting was found arranging a meeting. No other conclusion could be drawn from these facts than that defendant not only deliberately but through a clever strategy succeeded in winning Lolita's affection and carrying on illicit relations with her. As a married man, the wrong he caused Lolita and her family was immeasurable and constituted injury in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the New Civil Code.

• Article 21 of the Civil Code — liability for willful injury contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy — Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The Court applied this provision to hold a married man liable for seducing an unmarried woman through deliberate scheme and trickery, causing injury to her family's name and reputation. The Court held that bad faith and deliberate seduction may be inferred from the totality of circumstances — including the use of a pretext to gain access, the continuation of the affair despite parental prohibition and deportation proceedings, and documentary evidence such as the note found upon the woman's disappearance — without requiring direct proof of subjective bad faith.

• "The circumstances under which defendant tried to win Lolita's affection cannot lead, to any other conclusion than that it was he who, thru an ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of making her fall in love with him." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: that deliberate seduction under Article 21 may be established through circumstantial evidence showing a scheme or trickery, without need for direct proof of bad faith.

• "Verily, he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code." — This passage ties the factual findings to the statutory basis of liability, confirming that the seduction of an unmarried woman by a married man through deliberate strategy falls squarely within Article 21.

• Article 21, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The Court applied this provision to hold the defendant liable for damages to the plaintiffs, finding that his deliberate seduction of Lolita through trickery, while being a married man, constituted willful injury to her family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy.

Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concurred.