PE vs. PE
Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers and sisters of one Lolita Pe. At the time of her disappearance on April 14, 1957, Lolita was 24 years old and unmarried. Defendant is a married man and works as agent of the La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral relative of Lolita's father. Because of such fact 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 frequented 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 and exchanged love notes The rumors about their love affairs reached 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. The affair between defendant and Lolita continued nonetheless. On April 14, 1957, Lolita disappeared from their house but her brothers and sisters found a note written by the defendant.
Whether the defendant is liable according to Article 21 of the Civil Code
Because of the frequency of his visits to the Lolita’s family who was allowed free access because he was a collateral relative and was considered as a member of her family, the two eventually fell in love with each other and conducted clandestine love affairs. Even when the defendant is prohibited to see Lolita, the defendant continued his love affairs with her until she disappeared from the parental home. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. Verily, he has committed an injury as contemplated in Article 21 of the New Civil Code. Defendant is sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of litigations