Cabague Vs

Cabague vs. Auxilio This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. Facts:  Felipe Cabague and his son Geronimo sued Matias Auxilio and his daughter Socorro to recov recover er damage damages s resul resultin ting g from from defend defendant ants‘ s‘ refus refusal al to carry carry out the previ previous ously ly agreed agreed marriage between Socorro and Geronimo are the complaints  The following are a! That defendants promised marriage if plainti"s would improve the house in #asud and spend for the wedding feast and the needs of the bride b! That plainti"s made the improvement and spent $%&& c! That without any reason' the defendants refused to honor their promise (efendants moved for the dismissal dismissal of the case' arguing that the contract contract was oral' oral' and  (efendants unenforceable  The court dismissed the case  )nder the former rules of procedure' when the complaint did not state whether the contract sued was on writing or not' the statute of frauds could be no ground for demurrer demurrer  )nder the new rules' *defendant may now present a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract was not in writing' even if such fact is not apparent on the face of the complaint! The fact may be proved by him+ Issue: ,-. that the transaction was not in writing can be proven in court Held: For breach of contract to marry' Geronimo may sue Socorro for damages! #ut Felipe can‘t continue with his suit because the suit is to enforce an agreement in consideration of  marriage! Felipe can‘t sue Matias on grounds of breach of mutual promise to marry! Felipe can‘t sue Socorro for breach of mutual promise to marry  #asically' Geronimo is the only one who can sue Socorro for damages for her failure to carry out their mutual matrimonial promises  The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision! Mallion vs. Alcantara Facts:

Mallion /led a petition with San $ablo City 0TC see1ing declaration of nullity of his marriage with Alcantara alleging the respondent‘s psychological incapacity! incapacity! This petition was denied! The appeal in the CA was li1ewise dismissed! After the decision attained /nality' he /led the same petition with San $ablo 0TC this time on the grounds that the marriage is without a valid marriage license! The respondent for her part moved to dismiss the petition invo1ing the principle of res judicata.  Issues: judicata a applies! Assuming it does not' would the lac1 of marriage license ,-. res judicat render the marriage null and void2 Held: Res Re s Judi Judicat cata a appl applie ies s and and lack lack of marr marria iage ge lice licens nse e cann cannot ot rend render er te te marriage null and void.  The petitioner is barred from instituting another suit where the cause of action is the same 3declaring nullity of his marriage with Alcantara4! 5n the second case' he is only invo1ing a di"erent ground which is the lac1 of marriage license! The 6udiciary would be s7uandering time' time' e"ort' e"ort' and /nanci /nancial al resou resourc rces es by litiga litigatin ting g the same same contr controve oversy rsy over over again! again! And assuming' for argument‘s sa1e' that he is not barred from instituting another case' he has already impliedly conceded the validity of his marriage when he instituted the /rst case! This admission binds the petitioner and cures the alleged defect of his marriage!