TENCHAVEZ VS ESCAÑO G.R. No.

L-19671 (November 29, 1965)

Facts:

Vicenta Escaño, 27, exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, 32, on February 24,
1948, before a Catholic chaplain. The marriage was duly registered with the local civil registrar.
However, the two were unable to live together after the marriage and as of June 1948, they were
already estranged. Vicenta left for the United Stated in 1950.

On the same year she filed a verified complaint for divorce against Tenchavez in the State of Nevada
on the ground of “Extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character.” A decree of divorce, “final and
absolute” was issued in open court by the said tribunal. She married an American, lived with him in
California, had several children with him and, on 1958, acquired American Citizenship. 

On 30 July 1955, Tenchavez filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and amended on
31 May 1956, against Vicenta F. Escaño, her parents, Mamerto and Mena Escaño whom he charged
with having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and alienating her
affections, and against the Roman Catholic Church, for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal,
decreed the annulment of the marriage, and asked for legal separation and one million pesos in
damages. Vicenta’s parents denied that they had in any way influenced their daughter’s acts, and
counterclaimed for moral damages.

Issue:

1.     Whether or not the divorce sought by Vicenta Escaño is valid and binding upon courts of the
Philippines.
2.     Whether or not the charges against Vicenta Escaño’s parents were sufficient in form.

Held:

1.     No. Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez’ marriage remain existent and undissolved under the
Philippine Law.  Escaño’s divorce and second marriage cannot be deemed valid under the Philippine
Law to which Escaño was bound since in the time the divorce decree was issued, Escaño, like her
husband, was still a Filipino citizen. The acts of the wife in not complying with her wifely duties,
deserting her husband without any justifiable cause, leaving for the United States in order to secure a
decree of absolute divorce, and finally getting married again are acts which constitute a willful
infliction of injury upon the husband’s feelings in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy, thus entitling Tenchavez to a decree of legal separation under our law on the basis of adultery.

2.     No. Tenchavez’ charge against Vicenta’s parents  are not supported by credible evidence. The
testimony of Tenchavez about the Escaño’s animosity toward him strikes the court to be merely
conjecture and exaggeration, and were belied by Tenchavez’ own letters written before the suit had
begun. An action for alienation of affections against the parents of one consort does not lie in the
absence of proof of malice or unworthy motives on their part.
Plaintiff Tenchavez, in falsely charging Vicenta's aged parents with racial or social discrimination and
with having exerted efforts and pressured her to seek annulment and divorce, unquestionably caused
them unrest and anxiety, entitling them to recover damages.

Page 1 of 2
Tenchavez v. Escano

Facts:
 February 24, 1948, Vicente Escano, 2nd yr student of commerce, from a well-to-do and
prominent family in Cebu, married petitioner Pastor Tenchavez, an engineer, without the
knowledge of her parents.
o Their marriage was the culmination of a love affair, and was duly registered with the
local civil register.
 Their plan to elope was disrupted by her mother who took her home, where she admitted the
marriage. Her parents were surprised and disgusted.
 A letter was handed to Mamerto Escano which discloses an amorous relationship between
Tenchavez and Pacita Noel, their friend. Thereafter, the couple became estranged.
 June 24, 1950, without informing her husband, Escano applied for a passport for which she
indicated that she was single, and after approval, she left for the US.
 In the District Court of Nevada, she filed for divorce, which was eventually granted, on the
ground of extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character.
 Sep.13, 1954, Escano married an American, Russel Leo Moran, in Nevada, with whom she had
children. She acquired US citizenship.
 July 30 1955, Tenchavez initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint on the annulment of
the marriage, and asked for legal separation and damages.
 But Escano claimed that her divorce was valid, and so is her marriage to her present husband.

Issue: Whether or not the divorce was valid

Held: No. It is not valid.

Ratio:
 Tenchavez and Escano were validly married to each other, under the civil law.
o age of majority, valid consent, Catholic priest
 The valid marriage between Tenchavez and Escano remained subsisting and undissolved under
Philippine law, notwithstanding the divorce obtained from the Court of Nevada.
 At the time the divorce was issued, Escano, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen.
o Thus, she was then subject to Philippine law.
 Art. 15 of the Civil Code (Nationality rule):
Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon the citizens of the Philppines, even though living abroad.
 The Civil code of the Philippines does not allow absolute divorce. It only allows legal
separation.
 The Philippine courts cannot recognize a foreign decree of absolute divorce. Art. 17 of Civil
Code:
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for
their object public order, policy and good customs, shall not be rendered ineffective by
laws or judgments promulgated or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country.
 The policy of our law cannot be nullified by acts of private parties, hence Escano’s divorce and
second marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid.
 Her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is technically “intercourse with a
person not her husband” from the standpoint of Philippine law, and entitles plaintiff
Tenchavez to a decree of legal separation under our law, on the basis of adultery.”

Page 2 of 2