Daisy was a teacher in a barrio school, about 24 yeas old. Being single yet she continued to stay with her parents in their hometown. Staying in the same town was George, Chinese, married and working as an agent of a factory with a branch in said town. George was an adopted son of another Chinaman who is the relative of Daisy’s father. George exploited this relationship and gained free access to Daisy and the trust of Daisy’s family. He was eventually accepted almost as a family member. Hence, he was able to frequently visit Daisy on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Thru this ingenious scheme, George won the love and enduring affection of Daisy. From then on, the two conducted clandestine trysts and exchanged love notes with each other. Their love notes revealed not only their infatuation for each other but also the extent to which they carried their illicit relationship.
Three years later, rumors about their illicit affair reached the ears of Daisy’s parents. So George was forbidden from further visiting and seeing Daisy. A deportation proceeding was even filed against George. In the meantime, Daisy was sent to live with her brothers ans sisters in the city. It was while Daisy was staying with her brothers and sisters when she suddenly disappeared. A note she left apparently indicated that she went with George. But George disclaimed to know her whereabouts and refused to tell where he hid her. This prompted Daisy’s family to sue him for damages. The lower court declared that their complaint was not actionable. Saying that it cannot be "unmindful of the uncertainties and sometimes inexplicable mysteries of the human emotions", the lower court concluded that it is possible that George and Daisy fell in love with each other which is not an actionable wrong.
Was the lower court correct?
No.
The circumstance under which George tried to win Daisy’s affection cannot lead to any other conclusions 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. No other conclusion can be drawn than that, George, a married man, not only deliberately but thru clever strategy, succeeded in winning Daisy’s love to the extent of having illicit relations with her. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable, considering that he is a married man. He has committed injury to Daisy’s family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. Daisy’s family can thus sue George and recover moral damages for seducing Daisy and causing her to fall in love with him. They can cite the case of Pe vs. Pe 5 SCRA 200.