Tenchavez v.

Escano, 15 SCRA 355 (1965)

[Rai Rai]
Feb 24, 1948 Vicenta Escano (27) missed her late afternoon classes to get married
to Pastor Tenchavez (32)
Escano scion of a well-to-do and socially prominent Filipino family of Spanish
ancestry and a sheltered colegiala
Tenchavez engineer, ex-army officer and of undistinguished stock (LOL)
They planned to elope, but the elopement was thwarted when her mother found out.
Vicenta was taken home, where she confessed that she already married Pastor. Her
parents sought the advice of a priest, who told them that he believed it was an
invalid marriage due to the lack of authority from the Archbishop or parish priest in
the celebration of the marriage. The priest wanted them to recelebrate the marriage,
but it didnt take place since Vicentas family found out (through an anonymous
letter) that Pastor and Pacita Noel (Vicenta and Pastors go-between) had an amorous
relationship. Vicenta continued to live with her parents while Pastor returned to his
job in Manila.
Their relationship slowly deteriorated. Vicenta went to Misamis Occidental to escape
the scandal in Cebu regarding her marriage and when there, a lawyer filed a petition
for her to annul the marriage. Vicenta didnt sign the petition and since she did not
appear at the hearing, the case was dismissed.
June 24, 1950 she lied that she was single in her passport application and went to
the States. In Nevada, she filed a complaint for divorce on the grounds of extreme
cruelty and was issued a final and absolute divorce by the court.
she married an American four years later, had children with him, and in 1958
acquired American citizenship
July 1955 Tenchavez initiated proceedings against Escano and her parents, asking
the court for legal separation and 1 million in damages
Vicenta claimed that she validly divorced Tenchavez and validly married her
current husband
Judgment did not decree a legal separation but freed Tenchavez from supporting his
wife and acquiring property to the exclusion of his wife. It allowed the counterclaim of
Vicentas parents for moral and exemplary damages.
W/N Tenchavez and Escano were validly married YES
From the standpoint of civil law, they were validly married to each other. They were
above the age of majority, qualified, consented to the marriage and the marriage was
performed by a duly authorized person in the presence of competent witnesses.
Anent the lack of ecclesiastical authoritization, the Court decreed it irrelevant in our
civil law because of the separation of Church and State and also because the
authority of the solemnizing officer is only a formal requirement, the lack of which
does not invalidate the marriage.
W/N the valid marriage between the two remained subsisting and
undissolved despite the decree of absolute divorce that Escano obtained
from Nevada YES

At the time the divorce was issued, Vicenta was still a Filipino citizen and therefore
subject to Philippine law. Art 15 of the NCC expressly provides that the laws relating
to rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of the person are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
since our CC doesnt admit absolute divorce, it would be a violation of public
policy for the Philippine courts to recognize this foreign decree of absolute
divorce between Filipino citizens
W/N Vicenta is liable for damages for her acts against Tenchavez YES
W/N the trial court erred in not granting legal separation to Tenchavez
YES
Since Vicenta and Tenchavez are still validly married under Philippine law, Vicentas
marriage to Leo Moran is adulterous in our jurisdiction and so the grant of legal
separation is justified.
W/N Vicentas parents should be liable for alienating the affection of their
daughter and influencing her conduct towards her husband NO (Relevant
Issue)
This charge is not supported by credible evidence, since Tenchavezs testimony was
considered by the Court to be merely conjecture and exaggeration.
in his letters to the parents prior to the suit asked for their forgiveness since
he misjudged them and caused them unhappiness because he married their
daughter without asking them first
clearly, there seems to have been no impediment to their marriage had he
only asked for their permission to marry Vicenta
the parents even proposed a recelebration of the marriage the fact that it
did not push through was not due to the parents but because Vicenta didnt
want to go through with it
o that the parents did nothing and respected her decision does not
constitute an alienation of affections
it is also not undue influence that her parents sent her money while she was
living in the States since they wouldnt have wanted her to live poor
No evidence that the parents of Vicenta, out of improper motives, aided and abetted
her original suit for annulment or her subsequent divorce. In the absence of malice or
unworthy motives, which have not been shown, good faith being always presumed
until the contrary is proved.
RULING: legal separation between Tenchavez and Vicenta, Vicenta to pay Tenchavez
damages and ordering Tenchavez to pay attys fees.