Under Philippine law, a mere breach of promise to marry is not a valid cause of action. The Civil Code does not provide a specific legal remedy for someone who was promised marriage and then left. The principle is that contracts to marry are personal and cannot be specifically enforced — no court can compel someone to marry another person.

This is consistent with the constitutional protection of marital rights and the voluntary nature of marriage. A promise, no matter how solemn, is not a binding contract that the courts will enforce.

There are recognized exceptions where the conduct surrounding the broken promise goes beyond mere breach and causes actual damage:

1. Moral Seduction (Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA)

If the woman was seduced under a promise of marriage, she may claim damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court recognized this in the landmark case of Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA (G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993). The key is that the promise induced the woman to surrender herself, and the man later refused to marry without just cause.

2. Abandonment After Extensive Wedding Preparations (Wassmer vs. Velez)

In Wassmer vs. Velez (G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964), the Supreme Court awarded damages when the groom backed out just before the wedding after extensive preparations, publicity, and invitations had been made. The Court found that the sudden withdrawal under these circumstances constituted an abuse of right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

3. Damages for Injury to Reputation

If the breach of promise was done in a manner that causes social humiliation or injury to reputation, the injured party may claim damages for moral injury under Article 2217 of the Civil Code.